Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1954

Mrs. Castle: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a Petition organised by the National Equine (and Smaller Animals) Defence League to which 130,694 signatures have been appended.
The Petitioners maintain that the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1954, does not sufficiently protect animals from various operations, and in particular castration, being performed on them without anaesthesia and that therefore the animals are still submitted to unnecessary pain and cruelty. An amendment to the law is therefore urged.
The Petition showeth
That the practice of castrating, docking and other operations without anaesthesia, all performed within the ages allowed by the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954, are grossly cruel, objectional and disgusting, despite the fact that the above-mentioned Act provides that no animal shall be subjected to any operation
without due care and humanity".
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that especially in regard to the castration of all animals, developed sufficiently to make the operation effective, they shall have the benefit of an effective anaesthetic during the whole of the operation. To this end an amendment to the 1954 Act should be effected immediately to save many thousands of animals annually from great fright and needless severe suffering.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Local Government Commission's Proposals (Local Inquiries)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether objectors, other than those indicated in section 23 of the Local Government Act, 1958, will be allowed to give evidence at local inquiries which he will set up to consider objections to the final proposals of the Local Government Commission for Wales.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): It will be open to the persons appointed to hold these inquiries to hear any evidence which they consider relevant.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local inquiries he will set up to consider the objections received to the final proposals of the Local Government Com mission for Wales; whether a single inspector will be appointed for all the inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: Arrangements for public local inquiries, about which local authorities will be consulted, have not yet been made. I expect, however, that it will be necessary to have several separate inquiries and it seems likely that more than one person will be appointed to hold them.

Mr. Watkins: Can the Minister predict how soon these inquiries will take place? As Minister for Welsh Affairs he will understand that there is a great deal of anxiety about the proposals of the Commission at the present time.

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that it must be some months before they can hope to start.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Reservoirs, Leeds and Manchester (Radioactivity)

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs


whether he has yet received the results of the 1962 tests for radioactivity in the reservoirs supplying water to Leeds and Manchester.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): Yes. The results will be included in a report on radioactivity in drinking water which is to be published next month. I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can the Minister say how these latest results compare with the previous tests made?

Mr. Corfield: Broadly speaking, they are very similar to those in 1959 when the levels rose following the 1958 nuclear weapons test.

Newcastle-under-Lyme (Nuisance Complaint)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take on the petition referred to him from citizens in Newcastle-under-Lyme concerning the nuisances of noise, dust, smoke, smell, and road damage in Orford Street and West Street, Porthill, Newcastle-under-Lyme; and, since some of this area will be required for road schemes in the future, if he will consult the Minister of Transport about ways and means of stopping avoidable nuisances.

Mr. Corfield: I understand from the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council that there is no evidence of any statutory nuisance against which it would be possible to take action under the Public Health Act, 1936.
The hon. Member will already be aware from the reply to his Question yesterday that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is looking into his side of the matter.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is evidence of genuine nuisance having existed in this area for a long time on account of the anomalous fact that this noisy industrial works is sited slap in the middle of a residential area? Would he not, therefore, assist his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who has now become the landlord of this site, to

hasten the removal of this works from a residential area as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Corfield: I will certainly co-operate with my right hon. Friend as much as we always do, but there is no direct power by which I can help the hon. Member.

Water (Underground Supply and Storage)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps Manchester Corporation have taken to supplement their water supply from underground sources such as disused mines; and what consideration has been given to the storage underground instead of on the surface of surplus or flood water from the Lake District.

Mr. Corfield: Both expedients were examined by the Conference on Water Resources in the North West which reported last April, and the first was examined separately by the Corporation. The conclusion was that neither expedient offered prospects of securing any large addition to existing supplies.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in the last 200 years thousands of millions of tons of coal and minerals have been excavated from under ground in the north of England? Does he really suggest that, as a result of this tonnage having been excavated, there is not adequate underground storage space available for the pumping into these artificial underground reservoirs of the floodwater from rivers in the north of England at appropriate times?

Mr. Corfield: I can only tell my hon. Friend that the Manchester Corporation examined no fewer than 34 coal mines and arrived at the conclusion that even if all of them were used only 13 million gallons a day would be available, whereas the immediate requirements of the Corporation are in the neighbourhood of an extra 50 million gallons a day. It is also, under present conditions, immensely expensive to extract from 34 different sources and to treat the water which may vary from one source to another.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Has no national survey been made recently


about the huge underground deposits of water that exist, or are believed to exist, in this country, apart from in disused coal mines?

Mr. Corfield: The Geological Survey carries out surveys of this sort. One of the main purposes of the Water Resources Bill, which is before the House, is to ensure that these matters are investigated on a national basis. I think that probably one of the difficulties in the past has been that there has been no one authority responsible for this operation.

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made in the storage of water underground instead of on the surface to meet the rapidly increasing water needs for agriculture, industry and domestic purposes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corfield: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a Question by myhon. Friend on 16th July, this technique will be studied by the Water Resources Board and the river authorities to be established under the Water Resources Bill. Some experimental work has been carried out already, but it is too early to say whether geological conditions in this country will prove suitable for the use of the technique on any considerable scale.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the very great need, does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is essential that this question of the examination of underground water storage possibilities should be pressed on with all speed? Is it not ridiculous that planning boards should talk about extracting water from the sea, and expensive methods of that kind, when there must be enormous possibilities of storing water underground, using it appropriately for industry, agriculture and domestic needs?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend's remarks underline the importance of the Bill which, we hope, will be disposed of between now and about this time tomorrow—and I hope that my hon. Friend will stay and help us to do so.

Gypsies, Kent

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and

Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress the Kent County Council has made during recent months in obtaining the 10 sites for gypsies and other travellers.

Mr. Corfield: Planning permission has recently been given for two sites, and I understand that applications for some further sites are likely to be submitted shortly. This is in addition to the site already in operation at Great Chart.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the fact that each site will have a maximum of 12 caravans and that on my site I already have 50? How much longer will it be before the authorities will live up to their responsibilities and look after Britain's outcasts in a manner which any Christian or democratic country should do without a private individual having to try to take the load off their shoulders?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member will appreciate that the difficulty is that of local opposition. This inevitably inhibits a district council. I can inform the hon. Member that the four district councils which have not yet put sites forward have been contacted by the Kent County Council and in each of the four cases there are good prospects of sites coming forward.

Pennine Way

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that there are long stretches of the Pennine Way, particularly in Derbyshire, the West Riding and Northumberland, where no overnight accommodation is available for walkers; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this deficiency is remedied.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of this. A hostel is being provided by the Peak Park Planning Board at Crowden in the Long-dendale Valley. In Northumberland the County Council is discussing the matter with the Youth Hostel Association with a view to making some provision.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. May I point out that the hostel proposed by the Peak Park Planning Board has been under consideration for some time now and that this is a matter of great urgency? When the National Parks


Act was passed in 1949 it was always visualised that the authorities would provide this accommodation. They were given powers to do so. Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that there is no further unreasonable delay in these cases?

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that the initiative must come from the local authorities, the Peak Park Planning Board or the National Parks Commission. When it does I can assure her that there will be no delay by my Department in considering these matters.

Public Firework Parties

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is satisfied that Section 132 of the Local Government Act 1948 gives local authorities adequate powers to organise public firework parties on 5th November as a contribution towards reducing the number of firework accidents at this time; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corfield: I am advised that the Section enables local authorities to provide or arrange public firework parties. It is for local authorities to decide whether to use these powers.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the appalling accidents that take place every November through the mishandling of fireworks, will the hon. Gentleman consider reminding local authorities that they have this power, so that parents may be encouraged to take their children to such parties rather than to let off fireworks in their own back gardens?

Mr. Corfield: I am not aware of any need to remind local authorities, but I will certainly see what publicity has been given to the matter. In the meantime, I am sure that the hon. Lady's Question will help considerably towards that end.

Mr. Allason: Would not my hon. Friend agree that these displays should be conducted by properly qualified people, in which case there needs to be either a vast training scheme to produce qualified people or these displays will be very few and far between?

Mr. Corfield: There is a variety of views, and I have a good deal of sym-

pathy with the view of my hon. Friend, but in this matter the responsibility is basically that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. K. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that just as soon as his right hon. Friend can announce that the County of Rutland is to retain its independence we will have a "bonanza" firework display; and that we know very well where to get the money from?

County Councils (Definitive Maps)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will issue a circular advising county councils to make definitive maps, prepared under Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, available in public libraries as well as in council offices.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is prepared to write to the local authority associations encouraging this for the maps using the new notation, which can be reproduced mechanically. All these rights of way are being incorporated in Ordnance Survey maps.

Mr. C. Johnson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it would be a great convenience, to an increasing number of people who wish to consult them, if these definitive maps were made available in public libraries as well as in council offices which, being open only for normal office hours, are not available to people working during the day?

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that point and, basically, agree with it. The difficulty is that in the older maps the notation had to be shown in colour, which is not easy to reproduce mechanically and is expensive to reproduce by hand. This is why we have altered the notation so that the maps can be reproduced mechanically.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will the Parliamentary Secretary also bear in mind that all over Britain people are now finding that rights of way and public footpaths are being taken up? Will he notify local authorities that it is their duty to keep rights of way, and see that they are noted on maps?

Mr. Corfield: The county councils have a statutory duty in this matter and most of them are carrying it out conscientiously and rapidly, but it is a fairly long process because of the various public inquiries that can arise.

Water Rates (Accounts)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the fact that water rate is a part of the general rates taxation structure, why he requires a separate account to be submitted.

Sir K. Joseph: There is no general requirement to submit a separate account. The general rate and the water rate are often included in the same demand note.

Sir B. Janner: As the water rate is now related to the general rate in all respects, in that an increase of rateable value increases the water rate by a similar proportion, does the Minister think it desirable to advise all the authorities concerned that they need not send two rate demands?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should realise that where the water authority and the local authority are identical, it is often convenient to send out the two demands separately but on the same note but, of course, not all ratepayers pay their water rate on the basis of rateable value, as many of them pay by way of meter.

Public Inquiries (Legal Expenses)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many cases in the last year local authorities, and therefore ratepayers, have paid the legal expenses of both sides in public inquiries; and in how many of these cases opposing local authorities have been within the same county.

Mr. Corfield: I regret that detailed figures could not be extracted without examining several thousand separate files. But I can state that in each case the numbers are very small.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that cases are arising where the wishes of the ratepayers are fairly clear; and that whereas as a member of the legal profession I can see some advantage in

the practice, as a ratepayer I strongly deprecate it?

Mr. Corfield: With due respect, I think that my hon. Friend's Question is remarkably unspecific. The term "public inquiries" covers a very large number of subjects, many of which are wholly outside the control of my right hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend will let me know which particular types of inquiry he has in mind, I will try to find an answer to his problem.

Derelict Land

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to curb speculation in derelict land.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the need to reclaim derelict land for housing and other purposes, if he will set up a committee to investigate how far these purposes are being frustrated by the speculative buying and selling of derelict sites.

Mr. Corfield: I have no evidence that the reclamation of derelict land which is normally undertaken by local authorities is being frustrated as suggested. In these circumstances there is no need for a committee.

Mr. Parkin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I hold in my hand a mortgage signed by Peter Rachman eight days before his death between a company of his and the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited for £100,000, prima facieevidence of fraud which needs investigation by the Inland Revenue and perhaps the Law Society? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the unencumbered assets on which the money was raised consisted of the Apedale Estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), which was bought not long ago for £20,000 or £30,000 and now is apparently valued at well over £100,000? Will the hon. Gentleman now alert the little district councils all over the industrial areas of England, who were hoping that the scars of the Industrial Revolution would be bulldozed away and replaced by housing estates, that funds are


available for these sharks who are making a fresh invasion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has ample opportunity to make speeches. This is Question Time.

Mr. Parkin: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is directly relevant. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he has no evidence. I give it to him and ask him to follow this up. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that he will not only follow the course of these funds but others from the previous Rachman empire, such as those from the sale of Nos. 63, 65, 67 and 69, Chepstow Road, Paddington, put on the market on the instructions of Captain Anthony Sykes?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Swingler.

Mr. Parkin: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not often behave like this, but I am impelled by a grave sense of responsibility. I would ask you to exercise tolerance because it is difficult to make half a statement on a matter of this importance which carries such terrible responsibility. Captain Anthony Sykes, who is one of the "rich Charlies", as Rachman delighted to call them when he sold them some of his more disreputable property—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The reason why we have to keep to the rules about Questions and have to keep supplementary questions short and not make speeches at Question Time is so that the common interest of all hon. Members with Questions on the Paper may be served.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Corfield: Hon. Gentlemen shout "Answer", but I have not had very much opportunity. What the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has not made out is the argument that because this man paid a very large sum in the belief that there was oil on this site—

Mr. Parkin: The hon. Gentleman still does not know anything about it.

Mr. Corfield: Because he had paid that sum it does not put up the value of the land by that amount to this or any other purchaser.

Mr. Swingler: I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is not a complete fool, but people in north Staffordshire

will think that he is, because none of them would fall for that sort of thing. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how on earth a parcel of mainly derelict land is taken over in my constituency and used to raise the sum of £100,000 for the purpose of speculating in London property and prostitution? This is what we want to know. Is the hon. Gentleman doing anything about this racket?

Mr. Corfield: It really is not for me to answer for the reasons why any lender considered this to be reasonable security for that amount of money. All I am saying is that it does not follow at all that if there were a compulsory purchase order the Lands Tribunal would take any account whatever of that price.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, without any prospect of oil at all, a piece of land in Hampshire on which the county council placed a value of £10,000 in 1957 is being sold to London County Council after passing through several hands for £500,000? Does he not think that this is disgraceful?

Hon. Members: Shocking.

Mr. Swingler: This is racketeering.

Mr. Corfield: Whatever may be the reasons for that particular amount, I cannot believe that a piece of land worth £10,000 in 1957 was or is derelict.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the policy of his Government is to encourage the use of derelict land, and if they proceed with that policy without any measures at all to check profiteering in land their advertising of their policy is simply an advertisement to people to make money out of it in return for no service at all to the community?

Mr. Corfield: We have, of course, debated this matter on a number of occasions, and on the most recent of them the Opposition were singularly lacking in answering my criticisms of their scheme. I would remind the hon. Member once more, as he knows perfectly well, that whether or not this man gave this amount of money for this land is no conclusive evidence of its value.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman talks about not answering his criticisms of our proposals. Are we to understand


that he has no answer to criticisms of the present situation and that he and his hon. Friends defend the kind of thing that Peter Rachman did and others do?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member knows as well as everybody else does that that is not true. The Question relates to whether or not speculation in derelict land prevents its reclamation by local authorities. There is no evidence whatever that this or any other transaction would put up the price which would be determined by the Lands Tribunal, which is the last resort.

Gosforth (Offices and Parking Facilities)

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the discontent of the local council and the residents of Gosforth regarding the decision to grant planning permission for high offices and facilities for car parking to be provided in the midst of a residential area, which will increase traffic dangers and depreciate property values; and if he will meet a deputation from the Gosforth Urban District Council to discuss these decisions.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is aware of the views of the district council and of the residents; but the decision has issued and no useful purpose would be served by either my right hon. Friend or myself receiving a deputation.

Mr. McKay: May I put it to the Minister that it is not right that when there is a dispute between a local council and the residents where permission is given to erect great blocks of high offices in a splendid residential area, the county council or the planning authority gives a final decision without allowing time for local people to meet the Minister and make their objections? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case there were two or three other sites where the offices could have been built and where there was easy access? Is he aware that the facts in this case begin to smell and that people are beginning to think that a wealthy company can pull the wires and—

Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want any point of order. I think that we had better

go on with the rest of that perhaps another day.

Mr. Corfield: I will try to reply briefly to the hon. Member's speech. I would remind him that Parliament, and that includes Governments of both political parties, has placed the responsibility for planning matters on the local planning authorities, in this case the county council. It is clear that in this case the county council took some pains to find out the views of the rural district council and the residents and acted perfectly properly and well within its powers. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene.

Racecourses

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress he is making in his efforts to encourage local authorities to negotiate for the use of racecourses for sport and recreation facilities on non-racing days; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corfield: My Department has written to all the local authority associations, and has taken note of the arrangements they have made to publicise this idea and to recommend it to their members. We have also enlisted the help of the National Playing Fields Association.
My right hon. Friend is very willing to consider proposals put to him, by local authorities who think that the dual use of racecourse land can make a contribution to their playing field problems.

Mr. Smith: Would my hon. Friend agree that the local authorities and the racecourse authorities at Wolver Hampton and Birmingham have set a valuable example in this respect, and will he persevere with his effort to encourage local authorities to negotiate for the use of racecourses, because there are 70-odd racecourses in this country which could be adapted for such use on non-racing days?

Mr. Corfield: I very much welcome the moves that have been made at Birmingham and Wolverhampton, and I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that a number of other local authorities are endeavouring to follow suit, but I do not think at the moment that any further publicity is needed from my Department.

Mr. Dance: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a director of Birmingham racecourse, I can say that the arrangement that we have with the City of Birmingham has been very happy? It has helped our amenities by keeping the centre of the course clean and tidy, and I hope that other racecourses will adopt this idea.

Planning Appeals, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many public inquiries resulting from planning appeals took place in Cornwall during each of the last five years; and how many have taken place during 1963, up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Corfield: I regret that the information requested is not readily available. The hon. Member may care to have figures relating to decisions issued, which, with permission, I will circulate in the Official Report.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the trend of those figures? Do they show that there are fewer public inquiries now than there used to be? Will he take account of the fact that, as he knows from correspondence with me, there is great dissatisfaction at the refusal to hold public inquiries in some parts of Cornwall recently?

Mr. Corfield: In so far as there are fewer, this is only a conclusion to be drawn from the last year. On the whole, the figures are very much the same as in the past. The number of appeals generally in Cornwall has probably been slightly higher than the national average, but this is true of most rural areas and the percentage of those successful and otherwise is broadly in keeping with the national average.

Following are the figures:


Number of decisions on planning appeals relating to Cornwall


1958
Figures not available


1959
65


1960
91


1961
119


1962
104


1963 (January-June)
55

Over the period, the proportion of decided cases in England and Wales in which a local inquiry was held has fallen from three-quarters to two-thirds.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Owner-Occupiers (Mortgages)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will take the necessary steps to enable young married couples, who desire to become owner-occupiers, to take up a mortgage repayable over a period of 40 years at an interest rate of not more than 4 per cent.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The Government's objections to special forms of indirect subsidy have been explained on many occasions.

Mr. Wainwright: Would it not be more considerate: to these young married couples, who are finding great difficulty in getting decent homes at reasonable rents, for the Government to accept the principle in my question and so ease the present heavy burden that falls on young people who are trying to buy houses?

Sir K. Joseph: The problem of the number of houses for sale to such people is related to the capacity of the building industry, and the number of private houses under construction is at a record level.

New Town, Erith Marshes

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consultations have taken place or are contemplated for the provision of local employment in connection with the proposal by the London County Council for a new town of 25,000 people on Erith Marshes by the transfer of industry from London to the Erith district, in keeping with the policy of decentralisation of employment from London.

Sir K. Joseph: The only consultations about industry which have taken place with my Department have concerned the possibility of Exchequer assistance towards the cost of transferring non-conforming industry in London to the Erith area. No other consultations are contemplated at present.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the plans were first discussed it was visualised that about 2,000 of the people from the new town


would find employment locally? Is he aware that the unemployment situation in the Erith and Crayford areas has developed alarmingly in the last few months? Will he, therefore, bear in mind—since London said that it would look to his Department to find the money to transfer industry—that unless this is done before the new population moves in, Erith and Crayford could become another depressed area, which we want to avoid?

Sir K. Joseph: Before any decisions are taken the L.C.C. will obviously be re-examining the prospect of moving non-conforming industry—industry that can not, by its nature, go to development or overspill areas—to a place like Erith.

High Buildings (Safety Standards)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what safety standards he requires before giving approval to tenders for building high blocks of flats by local authorities.

Mr. Corfieid: Local authorities are themselves responsible for ensuring safety in the buildings they erect. The only requirement my right hon. Friend imposes is that they must certify that their dwellings are consistent with the building byelaws in force in the district.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the large number of children who live in many of these high blocks of flats and the deaths which have already occurred through children falling from balconies and certain types of window, is it not essential that some safety standards should be set by the Minister since it is clear that the present arrangements are not satisfactory? Is it not important that local authorities should be made aware of the need, of which they do not at present seem to be aware, to erect guards to ensure safety on these balconies, particularly where very young children live?

Mr. Corfield: I will certainly consider the hon. Lady's representations. In so far as we advise on design, the safety factors are absolutely basic to design. We give advice on design in individual cases and also generally in publications, and these matters are very much taken into account. However, I will consider what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the difficulty some adults have experienced in seeing out of their windows at all in these high flats, because the windows are often far from the floor? Will he take that matter into account when considering the question of balcony guards, guard screens and so on and ensure that one is able to see through them? They should not be opaque.

Mr. Corfield: I do not propose to dictate that sort of detail to local authorities.

Former Barber Trust Houses, Birmingham

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why the tenants of former Barber Trust houses, now in the possession of the Birmingham Corporation, are not to be allowed to purchase the freeholds of their property; and if he is aware that this was the expectation of those tenants when they were originally told that the Government was making a sale of these houses to any interested tenants a condition of their acquisition by the Corporation.

Sir K. Joseph: This is a matter for the Birmingham Corporation, which bought these houses in order to keep the estate together until a housing association can be formed to take it over, but it is being told that if it is willing to sell the freehold in particular cases any consent it needs from me will be forthcoming. I would add in fairness to the Corporation that, as I understand it, it gave no undertaking which would justify the tenants in their expectation.

Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that that change of position which he has taken up is very welcome? Is he aware that his predecessor insisted that tenants should have the right to buy and that the housing manager of the Corporation also said on 28th September, 1961, when the Corporation took the houses over, that tenants should have the right to buy their houses? Is he aware that many of the tenants in my constituency automatically took that to mean the right to buy the freehold? Because the Corporation is giving leases


of 40 years, on the ground that the property might be needed for redevelopment, considerable controversy is being caused. Will the Minister, now that he has changed his mind, be more energetic in his representations to the Birmingham Corporation in an effort to get the Corporation to change its mind?

Sir K. Joseph: This is a matter for the Birmingham Corporation to decide. There may have been a certain amount of misunderstanding, perhaps on both sides, as to whether the sale referred to freehold or leasehold.

Weekend Cottages (Improvement Grants)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to prevent improvement grants from being given for the improvement of weekend cottages.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. The test for grant should be whether the dwelling needs and is worth improving, regardless who happens to own or occupy it at any particular time.

Dr. King: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in his own Minister's White Paper the Government's principle is declared to be that subsidies should not be given to people who do not need them; and that the vast majority of the English people think it monstrous that ratepayers' and taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise the provision of weekend cottages which make no contribution at all to the solution of the housing problem?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member must appreciate that the object of this exercise is to preserve the houses. I am advised that in this matter it would be quite impossible to make a practical distinction of this kind. After all, many houses are improved by people who have only one house, and are then sold to those who may use them for weekends. Other people who are fully employed are virtually only at their homes at the weekends, and I am advised that it would be quite impossible to frame a statutory distinction.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: Is my hon. Friend aware that ratepayers generally find that

this is very good business because of the increase in rateable value? They make money on it.

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that it is not in the interests of any area to allow houses to become slums unnecessarily, whoever owns them.

Mr. M. Stewart: How do the Government square their attitude on this matter with their previous objection on Question No. 9 to what are called "indirect subsidies"?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the basis of a grant for improvement is quite different from the basis of a subsidy. The House should bear in mind that even under the Rent Acts it is possible for a controlled tenant to have the controlled tenancy of more than one house.

Dr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory reply from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Improvement Grants (Baths)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what decision has been taken regarding improvement grants where a bath unit can be installed without reducing living accommodation in a house, details of which were sent to his Department some months ago by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange.

Sir K. Joseph: This is one of the matters I am considering in connection with legislation to implement the proposals affecting the improvement of houses outlined in the recent White Paper on Housing.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister hurry up with this matter, because it is now 12 months since I sent information about it? There are very many two-bed-roomed houses in very good condition that have no bath. If it is possible to put a bath and the equipment in a kitchen it helps the housing problem, because many people do not want to move, and if a bath is put in a bedroom the house becomes overcrowded. I am very pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is giving consideration to this


matter, but will he please hurry up, as it needs urgent attention?

Mr. A. J. Irvine: In this connection, has the Minister in mind the fact that some time ago his Department had discussions with the Liverpool Corporation on his Ministry's Circular 29 of 1962, which the Corporation regarded as introducing a more restrictive policy for the authorising of improvement grants? Does the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) come within the ambit of that policy Circular? If so, should not the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to communicate again with the Liverpool Corporation to clear up any possible doubt about the matter?

Sir K. Joseph: The whole detail of the improvement grant policy is under review at the moment, pending what I hope will be early legislation, but I will take up the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

Local Authorities (Borrowing Powers)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to empower local authorities to borrow over a period of 80 years for housing purposes.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. There is already power for local authorities to borrow over a period of 80 years for housing purposes but as a matter of policy the period is restricted to a maximum of 60 years except in the case of land.

Mr. Lubbock: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman is reluctant to grant loan sanction for a period of over 60 years although he is entitled to do so under existing legislation? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in the National Income and Expenditure Blue Book and elsewhere the figure of 100 years has been accepted as the life of a house and that therefore local authorities should be able to borrow over a longer period than 60 years and thus bring down rents charged to their tenants?

Sir K. Joseph: It is prudent in a period of rapid change and obsolescence to keep the borrowing period for a

property well within its effective life. To increase the borrowing period to 80 years would reduce the cost to the tenant by only 2 per cent.

House Prices

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs by how much the prices of houses have increased during the six months since 1st January, 1963.

Sir K. Joseph: I have no exact information about the selling price of houses. The average tender cost of local authority two-storey 3-bedroom houses, however, rose in the first five months of this year by £47 from £2,018 to £2,065.

Mr. Brockway: Am I right in thinking that a report has recently been conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman on this issue of the increase in the price of houses since January, 1963? If so, is he bearing in mind the almost intolerable burden which house occupiers have to bear in the increased mortgage charges? This is becoming very serious among a large number of house occupiers.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not aware of having received a recent report on this matter, though I have seen estimates in the newspapers. I recognise that house prices have tended to rise. Nevertheless, house building is increasing faster. Of course, it is because we want to ease the strain on those who make great efforts to buy houses that we are going to introduce the Housing Corporation.

Homeless Families, Willesden (Rehousing)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, if he will give special help to the borough of Willesden to deal with the cost of rehousing cases of eviction due to the Rent Act.

Sir K. Joseph: The rehousing of homeless families is part of the normal responsibilities of a housing authority, and Exchequer subsidies are already available to help with new building. The borough council has not represented to me that it is in need of special help.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister concede that in the housing problem there are areas of acute shortage which need special consideration? Does he recall that we had to rehouse 74 hardship—mostly eviction—cases in the last 12 months and that we have spent £154,644 for that purpose? In addition to the provisions which he has already mentioned, of which we are aware, will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to areas like Willesden?

Sir K. Joseph: The point is that the subsidies are best directed to building new houses. I understand that Willesden has managed to buy over 100 houses for the sort of purpose the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Pavitt: There is no opportunity to put new houses in Willesden because there is no land on which to erect them. Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration?

Sir K. Joseph: That is why the London Government Bill gives great prospects to places like Willesden.

Housing Associations (Loans)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how much money has been given to date from the £25 million designated for loans to housing associations.

Sir K. Joseph: By 17th July, advances of £711,330 had been made towards the cost of schemes for which the total Exchequer commitment will be about £9,200,000.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that these amounts are inadequate in the circumstances and that we want them increased? Will he consider making available cheaper interest rates on this particular form of loan for a borough like Willesden where there are 209 families each unable to live together under one roof because of lack of housing and 390 families overcrowded according to the statutory standard? Does he realise that we would welcome the co-operative approach of a housing association in order to cope with the problem but cannot go ahead because of the high interest rates at present prevailing?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that either the

present scheme or any future scheme will break down on the interest rates. I must disagree with his view, because the rate of acceleration in the use of the £25 million scheme has been very striking over the past 18 months.

Mr. MacColl: How much of the advances have been made in areas of severe housing need and how much in areas where substantial progress is already being made with housing apart from the associations?

Sir K. Joseph: That is another question, but my information is that most of it is for areas of high housing pressure.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Industrial Development, South-West

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for Government assistance to establish new industries in the south-west of England where wages are below the national average.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I shall continue to encourage industrial development in all localities in the south-west of England listed as development districts, where the provisions of the Local Employment Act apply.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that they are not all development districts? There is some despondency in the West Country about the difficulty of attracting the small industries which we need. We could do with help from my right hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Erroll: I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend, but my first priority must be the development districts, although, of course, from time to time there are projects which are tied to a particular locality. When they are tied to the South-West, industrial development certificates will, of course, be granted.

Miss Herbison: Surely the President of the Board of Trade is aware that in development districts like north Lanarkshire, where there is very heavy unemployment, wages are lower than they are in equivalent places in the Midlands and the South. What does he propose to do


to try to bring more work to the people of Scotland who are desperately in need of it?

Mr. Erroll: Relative wage levels are not among the factors which I take into consideration in operating the policy for steering industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR ENERGY AND GENERATING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister, if, having regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries dealing with the Electricity Supply Industry, and particularly paragraphs 400–5, he is satisfied with arrangements for co-ordinating Ministerial decisions about the nuclear energy and generating programmes; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. Ministerial decisions are co-ordinated in the usual way, when necessary through the Cabinet and its Committees. The views expressed in the Report from the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries about coordination below Ministerial level have been noted.

Mr. Ginsburg: Will the Prime Minister reread the Report? Has there not been a deplorable lack of consultation between the nationalised Boards themselves and between Government Departments? Has not the result of this complete lack of a fuel and power policy been power cuts last winter and the prospect of severe power cuts in the next few winters as well?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think there has been a lack of consultation. Of course, there is always room for improvement, and that we shall carry forward.

Mr. Warbey: If the Prime Minister is satisfied with the arrangements, can he say how it is that the Government have not yet worked out the fuel equation for the next decade and published it, and taken steps to see that all branches of the fuel industry, including the oil and gas industries, comply with it?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the figures for the next decade, I do

not carry them in my head and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT (AUTOMATION AND MECHANISATION)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prune Minister what investigations have now been undertaken by the several Departments of the Government concerned into the effect of automation and mechanisation on the employment situation; and what conclusions have been reached.

The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Labour is about to carry out an inquiry which will cover the effects of technological change upon employment in the engineering and allied industries, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is sponsoring several research projects on various aspects of automation.
The conclusion of earlier studies was that although automation would considerably alter the pattern of employment, it need not cause serious unemployment.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the progress of automation, mechanisation and modernisation in industry is bound to have an effect on the number of persons employed. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he informs me that the Minister of Labour has been looking into it, as recently as eleven days ago I asked him about this and he said that he would look into the matter, apparently for the first time?

The Prime Minister: I believe there is a Question on Monday in reply to which my right hon. Friend intends to give a full Answer. While clearly all increased mechanisation and automation has an impact on the people employed in those particular industries; that is one side of the problem. That is why we are giving such importance to the plan for industrial training and redundancy provisions of which the House has been informed; but it does not necessarily mean—indeed, very much the opposite—a greater degree of total unemployment.

Mr. H. Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen American estimates


showing that in that country where automation has been proceeding faster and earlier than in this country, they think they are going to require to produce 41 million additional jobs by 1970 and that we shall be faced with a similar, if smaller, problem in the later years of this present decade? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the inquiry to which he referred was going to be in the engineering and allied industries, American experience shows that the biggest problem from the employment point of view is the effect of introducing computers in clerical and white collar trades? Are the Government preparing for the problems which will arise there?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and this is the purpose of these inquiries which are being made. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the worst possible policy would be to try to holdback technological progress.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Mr. Khrushchev's boast that he intends to drive the capitalist economy into the ground and that this boast is based on the assumption of the automation of Russian industry? Therefore, is it not of paramount importance that Her Majesty's Government should do the utmost possible to introduce automative processes into British industry?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. What we have to do is to proceed with technological progress, but to carry on at the same time with the studies as to how and by what methods the human problems that arise can be dealt with.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a fact that one of the big troubles in this country is that we have not really begun to face this problem—quite the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting? Is it not shocking to anyone who knows our industrial history that, over the past 10 years, Britain has become not the world's biggest exporter of automated equipment, as we ought to be by our qualifications, but the world's biggest importer of automated equipment?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be another aspect of the problem, but not one to which the Question was directed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICES PRESS AND BROADCASTING COMMITTEE (D NOTICE)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister why permission was given to the Services Press and Broadcasting Committee to publicise the name of the Russian spy who defected 18 months ago.

The Prime Minister: On Thursday, 11th July, the Services Press and Broadcasting Committee, with the full agreement of the Press representatives on the Committee, requested newspaper editors not to publish information about this defector. The man's name was included in the message to editors, which was marked "Private and Confidential", because it was thought right to take them into the Government's confidence and because it was assumed that they would refrain from publishing it or anything else about him.
The request was made partly on grounds of national security and partly in consideration of the individual concerned. These considerations still apply. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to go further into the details of the case, as I am sure the House will understand.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the fact that the name has got out, have investigations been made into how it got out? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the D notice was issued last Thursday at all, when this defection apparently took place 18 months ago? Is it an attempt to enhance the declining prestige of the Government in security matters?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; the object of the notice was that it should not be known, not that it should be known—the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Unfortunately, one newspaper, having got this information from a foreign source and believing that it might shortly be published in the foreign Press, did not follow the request in the notice.

Mr. Wigg: Is it not a fact that, before the D notice was issued, Government sources had supplied information about the defection of this man, which occurred some 18 months ago, and it was only after the protest of the newspaper offices that the D notice was issued?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not think that those are the facts. The facts are as I have stated them. If the hon. Gentleman has any further information to give me, I shall be very grateful.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD DENNING (INQUIRY)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will request Lord Denning to publish at least an interim report before the House of Commons goes into recess.

The Prime Minister: I understand that Lord Denning is still seeing witnesses. I do not think that it would be right to ask him to interrupt his inquiry at this stage for the purpose of making an interim report even if that were possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Rusper on 13th July, regarding Her Majesty's Government's three main policies on nuclear testing, Central Africa and housing, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Rusper, Sussex, on 13th July last, relating to the housing target of 350,000 houses per year, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Does that mean that the Prime Minister endorses the statement that there will be no General Election this year, which is what the Leader of the House said in that speech, and was it with the Prime Minister's approval that the Leader of the House left out the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one of the potential candidates for the Prime Ministership?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is just trying to have a bit of fun. I have given him my Answer.

Mr. Lipton: Why was it found possible to announce the Government's

decision on the housing target in this House while announcing an almost equally important decision about not holding a General Election this year not to this House but to some meeting or other in the countryside?

The Prime Minister: I think that the House has some recollection of the Government setting targets for housing and also being able to reach them.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the speeches of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) represent the policies of the Labour Party?

Mr. Speaker: It is no part of the Prime Minister's duty to express opinions on matters of that kind.

Mr. Wyatt: The Prime Minister has not answered my question about the General Election. Does he agree with the Leader of the House in saying that there will be no General Election this year?

The Prime Minister: I must leave hon. Members to guess.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL PARKS (MILITARY TRAINING FACILITIES)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Prime Minister what machinery exists for consultation between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Service Departments in regard to seeking military training facilities over areas inside the National Parks, or places designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The Prime Minister: The machinery for dealing with proposals by Service Departments for military training facilities is set out in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's Circular No. 100, dated 7th December, 1950, and Circular No. 11/54, copies of which are being sent to the hon. Member.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that it seems that there is no liaison between the Service Departments and the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to land of the kind mentioned in my Question? Is he aware that the Admiralty is seeking special facilities in the Lands End


peninsula which is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty when the St. Eval aerodrome further east along the north coast of Cornwall is available all the time?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is complete liaison. Under the system which started in 1950 and which has continued since, the procedure is this. The Department must consult the local planning authority, which is responsible for consulting all other interests likely to be affected, including, of course, in the case of National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, the National Parks Commission. If there is a disagreement between the Department and the local authority, the matter is then referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government who consults further with the parties concerned with a view to agreement and, ultimately, a decision.

Mr. G. R. Howard: The area involved here, which is in my constituency, is somewhat different from the area of the St. Eval airfield. Is it not a fact that, when the Admiralty made these representations, it had, so far as can be ascertained, agreement to the proposal, and it has been only since these agreements were reached that further factors have emerged which have made the situation what it is today?

The Prime Minister: As the Question is in general terms and mentions no particular place, I am not fully informed as to either what the hon. Gentleman opposite has in mind or the matter to which my hon. Friend is referring. I am quite sure that the procedure was followed exactly as it has been laid down all these years.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOSCOW (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the test ban talks now taking place in Moscow, he will ask the British representative to raise for discussion the subject of international espionage as relevant to inspections in connection with testing of nuclear weapons.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on Tuesday.

Mr. Craddock: I regret that reply. Will the Prime Minister be good enough to consider this matter further? Can he oblige us by saying what are the reasons why the question cannot be discussed at the Moscow talks?

The Prime Minister: I feel that the House will agree that, at this stage of the negotiations, there is nothing that I could say which would be useful and there are many things which I might say which would be damaging. Therefore, I propose to say nothing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recollect that Mr. Khrushchev, during his visit to America, made the suggestion that secret documents could be exchanged with mutual value to both sides?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but that is not related to whether I could say any thing now about the Moscow negotiations.

Mr. Ridley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not in our interests to have such an arrangement since we have caught more spies than the Russians have?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM OIL PIPELINES LTD.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SKEET: To ask the Minister of Power when he will reach a decision on the two applications, lodged under Section 1 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962, for oil product pipelines between the Thames and the Mersey.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): With permission, I should now like to answer Question No. 67.
I have decided to allow the application by United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Ltd. to go forward, and to refuse the application by Trunk Pipelines Ltd. The applicants are today being told of my decision.
The companies participating in United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Ltd. supply about nine-tenths of the light oil products consumed in the areas to be served by the pipeline. There is thus assured support for this scheme from all


the major users, and most of the other potential users have told my Department that they prefer this scheme to that of Trunk Pipelines Ltd.
The Trunk Pipelines scheme was designed to follow canals and railways and to produce some revenue for the transport boards. Against this, the United Kingdom Oil Pipelines scheme is likely to cost between £2 and £3 million less on a comparable basis, and the costs of operating the pipeline would also be lower.
I consider that this proposal offers the prospect of greater economies in the cost of transporting oil, and I have decided that it should go forward to the next stage of the procedure laid down by the Act for public advertisement and, if necessary, for inquiry into objections.

Mr. Skeet: I think that the House will appreciate my right hon. Friend's commonsense approach to this problem. Can my right hon. Friend say whether any application has been made under Sections 9 and 10 for additional capacity on this line? Also, can he say whether any lateral deviation will be permitted under the application?

Mr. Wood: No application has been made at present. Those Sections might operate later, but both pipelines were to be constructed to deal with all the demand likely to be met. I cannot at the moment give any information about the lateral deviation. No doubt this might be the subject of representations which might result in an inquiry.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House regret very much that he has rejected the application of the company which proposed to follow a line along the canals and railways which would have yielded an income to the very hard-pressed public enterprise transport undertakings? Has the right hon. Gentleman a firm assurance that the interests of the oil companies which are competitors with the members of this consortium for use of the pipeline in the years to come will be protected?
Inasmuch as the granting of this application confers powers which hitherto such an applicant would have obtained

only by successfully taking a Bill through Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman make available to the right hon. and hon. Members, by means of a White Paper or in some other way, the nature of the application and all the circumstances and considerations which he took into account in making up his mind, so that the House will be able to judge the matter fairly and squarely on its merits?

Mr. Wood: I certainly took into account the effect on the canals and railways and the possible loss of income. But I took the decision because of the great saving in cost of construction and operation of the United Kingdom Oil Pipelines line.
The oil companies have given me a number of undertakings, the most important of which is that there will be no discrimination at all against those competing with the owners of the line. Indeed, they have been willing to submit to an independent technical check to see that there is no discrimination. In any event, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) pointed out, I have powers under Sections 9 and 10 to prevent abuse.
Lastly, may I deal with the hon. Member's point about this being an alternative to a Private Bill. It is, of course, essential that if compulsory rights are required a compulsory order can be issued by me, and it would be subject, as the hon. Member knows, to special Parliamentary procedure. Therefore, the House would be able to express a view on it.

Mr. Doughty: When my right hon. Friend is considering the details of this scheme, will he remember that it is hoped that very shortly oil will be found under the North Sea and that this scheme should be linked with the oil which, we trust, will be found?

Mr. Wood: I hope that that possibility will turn into fact.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Minister give us the names of the oil companies concerned in this consortium?

Mr. Wood: The five companies which are to build the line are Shell Mex and B.P. Ltd., Esso, Mobil, Petrofina and Regent.

Mr. Lubbock: First, can the Minister give us an estimate of the amount of


income being lost to the canals and railways by the award of this contract to the other company? Secondly, can he make clear something which, at any rate to me, is rather a mystery? He said that the capital cost of the scheme which has been accepted is £2 to £3 million less than the one which was rejected, and yet the rejected company would not have had to purchase way leaves and rights of way through private land because the pipeline would pass through land belonging to canals and railways. Can the Minister therefore explain how it comes about that the rejected bid was so very much higher?

Mr. Wood: The difference in cost took into account the extra expense which would fall on the oil companies for obtaining the way leaves. The main reason why it would have been more expensive to construct the line along canals and railways is that the work would have had to take place in considerably cramped conditions. It would also be a longer line and, therefore, more expensive. The cost of operating it would be greater, not only because the oil would have further to go, but because the capital charges would be greater.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. I understand that, earlier, you, Mr. Speaker, half-called my name. I was hoping that you would now add the other syllable.

Mr. Speaker: I can only recommend to the hon. Gentleman the adoption of a monosyllabic name.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 22ND JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which, if the House agrees, it is proposed to take formally.

Debate on an Opposition Motion on Consequences of the Rent Act, 1957, and Property Profiteering.

Motions on the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (France) Order, the Cine-

matograph Films Regulations, and the Commonwealth Preference Area (Removal of West Cameroon) Order.

TUESDAY, 23RD JULY—Remaining stages of the Public Order Bill [Lords], and of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Motions on the Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations and the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 Order.

WEDNESDAY, 24TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

There will be a debate on Unemployment of Young People, which it is thought may last for half a day, and be followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.

THURSDAY, 25TH JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the London Government Bill.

Motion on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order.

FRIDAY, 26TH JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Contracts of Employment Bill and to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill.

If there is time we propose to facilitate consideration of the remaining stages of a number of Private Members' Bills, including the Animals Boarding Establishments Bill and the Performers' Protection Bill [Lords].

MONDAY, 29TH JULY—The proposed business will be: Debate on Welsh Affairs.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the Leader of the House satisfied that he has allowed enough time for the Lords Amendments to the London Government Bill? Can we have an assurance that there will be no attempt to truncate that discussion, either by guillotining it or by an attempt to take the Amendments en bloc?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member knows very well that in paragraph 13 of the Allocation of Time Order there was provision for a supplementary Motion to be moved. We would, of course, propose to move such a Motion on Thursday, 25th July. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Of course. If the hon. Member would like, with the Minister concerned and


myself, to have discussions on the form of business that day, we would be glad to do so.

Mr. H. Wilson: There is no "of course" about it. Is the Leader of the House aware that this is a monstrous procedure, that this House did not get proper consideration of the London Government Bill, with all the damage that it does to local government in London, and that whatever may have happened in another place, where there was vigilance by certain noble Lords, that does not affect the rights of this House? There are a considerable number of Lords Amendments, on which it is right that this House should have adequate facilities for debate and decision. Will the right hon. Gentleman think again on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: The Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well, because he has the form of the Allocation of Time Order, which was passed or approved by this House, that provision is made in paragraph 13 of that Order, and has been for a considerable time, for precisely cases of this sort. We will, of course, gladly have any consultations on this matter that are helpful and we would try to be helpful in the matter. I could not undertake to go beyond that.

Mr. Wilson: I know that the Government have taken power, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that merely because they have taken power to do evil in a certain direction does not mean that they must do evil? The proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made for consultation is entirely prejudiced by the decision which he has announced that the Government will have a Guillotine. It is quite impossible for any such discussion to be constructive or helpful. Will the right hon. Gentleman think again? We know that he has that power—he has the power to do a lot of harm, and he keeps on doing it—but here is a case where the right hon. Gentleman, having the power, might have the good sense not to use it.

Mr. Macleod: The Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that considering the number of Amendments, of which no fewer than 156, for example, are consequential, and 40 or 50 are drafting, in a Bill that is as contentious as

this one—there would have been no point otherwise in this part of the Allocation of Time Order—it always was the intention that if a substantial number of Amendments came from another place, this provision would be used.
I am, of course, ready to think again. I cannot think—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I must speak a little more quickly. I believe that the consultations which I have suggested could be useful and worth while. Beyond that, I do not make any set proposals for Thursday, 25th July, but we will be glad to discuss it.

Mr. P. Williams: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving some of us on this side an opportunity to put some questions. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] May I ask my right hon. Friend—[Hon. Members: "Sit down."] May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. I am not aware whether you heard, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) prefaced his remarks by saying that he thanked the Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: "Leader of the Opposition."]—for giving him and his hon. Friends the opportunity of asking a question from that side of the House. Am I not right in assuming, Mr. Speaker—[Hon. Members: "No."]—that every—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The burdens of the Chair are sufficient without having it made difficult for its occupant to hear.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in assuming that hon. Members, on both sides, owe the privilege of asking questions to you and to no one else, and that no other person in the House can give them that right?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will trust me to do what I think is right, the position is that we have gallons and gallons of water resources to get through. We must get on.

Mr. P. Williams: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have added to the burden


of the water which flows under the bridge. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a suggestion which the House might be willing to adopt, namely, that the hon. Member might be allowed time to reflect upon the precise terms of his question and that for the moment I should call another hon. Member.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government have fixed a further date for debate on the reorganisation of defence and, if so, whether we are to have one or two days for this important debate?

Mr. Macleod: It will be during the three or four days remaining before we rise and after the business which I have announced. I cannot give a precise date. It will be a one-day debate during the last week before we rise.

Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend has promised an early debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland. Can he tell us when it will take place?

Mr. Macleod: It will also be in the last week before we rise.

Mr. Wade: As, I understand, the Government are giving consideration to the effectiveness—or, perhaps I should say, the ineffectiveness—of the Housing Act, 1961, in its application to multiple occupation and the scandalous abuse of the housing shortage by certain landlords, may we take it that in the debate on Monday an opportunity will be taken by the Government to announce the conclusions which they have reached on this subject?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has invited such representations. He has, of course, heard the point which has been made and he will be speaking in that debate.

Mr. P. Williams: This is a shipping matter, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can elaborate on his answer of last week in relation to the provision of £30 million of credit facilities for the shipping industry and whether legislation will be necessary for this? If so, will it come forward shortly?
Secondly, during the course of business next week, will a statement be made on the Cunard problem?

Mr. Macleod: Legislation will in due course be necessary. It is not necessary immediately. It will be in the business for next Session.
On the other point which my hon. Friend has raised, there will be an announcement presently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I cannot give him a precise date.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper concerning the disregard of the House shown by the Ministerial practice of thrusting in statements of policy in the form of Written Answers to prearranged Questions, the Answers being previously disclosed to the Press?
[That this House deplores the growing practice of Ministers announcing important decisions and executive actions by means of Written Answers to Questions often placed on the Order Paper for this purpose, thus depriving hon. Members of their established right to examine ministerial statements, and requests the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make a statement at the earliest opportunity on the composition and terms of reference of the committee to inquire into the impact of rates on different sections of the community.]
I ask this question because the Minister of Housing has done it again recently, and it invariably causes vexation to a number of hon. Members.

Mr. Macleod: I do not accept everything that the hon. Member says, but I recognise that there is a difficult point here. Sometimes, especially as we move towards one of the Recesses that we have each year, a considerable number of statements are made, and the House is sometimes restive if too many statements are made at 3.30 p.m. We have to try to keep a balance in this matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind—as time is getting rather short—that there are many outstanding questions dealing with the problems of widows—both Service widows and widowed mothers—and the earnings rule? Will he also bear in


mind that statements dealing with policy will be expected by me and many other people before the House rises, and that I would like to know whether we are to get these statements—because I wish to plan an explosion if we are not?

Mr. Macleod: I shall have to consider all the implications of that statement. I will draw it to the attention of my colleagues.

Miss Herbison: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will provide time to get all the stages of the Law of Intestacy Bill through the House, since the women of Scotland feel that the Government have worked the shabbiest and meanest trick upon them by presenting the Bill knowing that they will not give time to remedy a grave injustice to Scottish women.

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Lady knows that the answer to the first part of her question is "No". It would not be practical politics, purely from the point of view of time.
As for the hon. Lady's second point, it is by no means unusual, and I am sure that with a Measure of this complexion and complexity it is right, that the Bill should be introduced, so that a debate on it can take place and, at the appropriate time, can be carried into law.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Did I understand my right hon. Friend aright to say that there would be a statement on Government policy with regard to the Q.4 liner before the House goes into recess?

Mr. Macleod: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport plans to make a statement before we rise. What form it will take I cannot tell the House at present.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, first, whether time will be found to debate the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and myself, which goes a little further than the one that has been referred to by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), and which draws attention to what happened yesterday when the Minister of Housing and Local Government answered a Question from me by way of a Written Answer, and the in-

formation in that Answer was conveyed to the Press by some means on the same day?
[That this House deplores the growing practice by Ministers in general, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government in particular, of announcing important policy decisions by means of written answers to Questions placed on the Order Paper for this purpose, thus depriving hon. Members of their established right to examine Ministerial statements, and declares that it particularly resents the leakage of information to the newspapers which enables them to give the substance of such answers before hon. Members could have known their contents.]
Secondly, will an opportunity be provided for the House to discuss the Corbett Report, or whatever snippets we are allowed to know about, before we rise for the Recess, bearing in mind the promise made by the Minister of Aviation, when we last debated this subject on 13th May, that we should have such an opportunity? He has had the Report in his hands for two months, and we still have not had an opportunity.

Mr. Macleod: There are still opportunities available to the hon. Member if he wishes to raise that matter. On the second point, there is a Question down on the Corbett Report for answer by my right hon. Friend in a few days' time.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity for the House to debate the decision which has just been announced by the Minister of Power to hand over a valuable transport concession to the international oil cartel? To enable hon. Members to judge the matter effectively, will he ask his right hon. Friend to publish a White Paper or lay a report on the Table setting out the circumstances which led him to make his decision?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. The House will realise that there are only two or three days available after the business that I have announced; that one of those days has to be a full day's debate on defence—which all the House is anxious to have—and that there are debates on Northern Ireland and accommodation which we are anxious to take before the House rises, if we can.

Mr. Wigg: As the Leader of the House has promised a debate on the White Paper dealing with the central organisation of defence, will he be kind enough to give consideration to the Notice of Motion relating to a new Standing Order No. 90B, which is on the Order Paper in my name, and which also amends the existing Standing Order No. 90A?

[Standing Orders: That the Amendment to the Standing Orders of this House relating to Public Business and the new Standing Order, hereinafter stated in the Schedule, be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order No. 90A

Line 4, at end insert, "except estimates concerned with expenditure on defence".

Insert new Standing Order No. 90B (Defence Expenditure Committee).

There shall be a Select Committee, to be designated the Defence Expenditure Committee to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as are concerned with expenditure on defence either by service or civil departments, including home defence expenditure by civil departments, and to report upon the effectiveness of the policy which those Estimates are designed to implement, to consist of fifteen Members, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every session, and of whom five shall be a quorum.

The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.

It shall be at the discretion of the Committee to require every person, not being a member of the Committee, to withdraw.]

Will he, in his capacity as Leader of the House, bear in mind that this House must control expenditure on defence, and consider this problem in relation to both present and future needs? Having considered it, will he be good enough to promise to speak during the debate, or consider submitting to the Select Committee on Procedure the proposal which I have put forward, or one which the Government might put forward, after

consultation with my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Macleod: I have studied the Motion relating to the suggested new Standing Order. It may be relevant to the debate that we are to have on defence, but it raises issues which go considerably wider than matters of defence. Of the various suggestions that the hon. Member puts to me, the last one is probably the one that I should pursue, and in due course I would have those discussions.

Mr. Ross: On Tuesday's business, can the Leader of the House tell us when he expects us to be able to start the discussion of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill? He will be aware that it is the major piece of Scottish legislation this Session. Will he take the precaution of suspending the rule, and give us an estimate when we shall finish, that night? Is he aware that he has not added to his reputation as Leader of the House by arranging that we should discuss an important Measure like the Children and Young Persons Bill at five o'clock in the morning, giving pride of place to a matter which is of rather specialised and limited importance—the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure?

Mr. Macleod: Not every hon. Member would agree with the hon. Member's last observation. I thought it right to try, on that Measure, to meet what I am sure was the general wish of the House. As for Tuesday's business, we would suspend the rule for that Measure. I certainly hope that it comes on at a reasonably convenient time.

Mr. Leavey: I wish to refer to the proposal to debate Welsh affairs on Monday week. I mean no disrespect whatever to hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that the practice of devoting a day to Welsh affairs is becoming a bad habit? If we have to have debates based on this regional principle, would it not be as well to consider having a day's debate, for example, on Lancashire, which covers one of the largest concentrations of population in the world, and is an area which contributes at least equally, both culturally and economically, to the wealth of Britain—and, incidentally, is an area which does not nourish any break-away or nationalist organisations?

Mr. Speaker: These geographical advertisements with tourist attractions in them get outside the scope of business questions.

Mr. Steele: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about next Tuesday's business? Does not he agree that his idea of a reasonable hour is not our idea of a reasonable hour? Will he alter the business so that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will be taken as the first business on Tuesday and not in the middle of the night, and until five o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Macleod: I can look at any suggestion made for the order of business. I will keep in mind what has been said. But the House will realise, as has been said, that no one wishes a Bill in which he is particularly interested to come on either on Mondays or Fridays or late at night, and that the combination of those three does limit the opportunities.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the strange and limited connotation of definition that the Government have lately put on the very simple phrase "North-East", may I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the debate on unemployment on Monday will include North-East Scotland?

Mr. Macleod: The debate on Monday is on "Consequences of the Rent Act, 1957, and property profiteering". The words are those of the Opposition and not mine. But the point the hon. and learned Member makes would, I think, be more appropriate in relation to the debate on Wednesday.

Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of the revelations by Professor Lovell, following his remarkable visit to Russia, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we may look for a statement before the Recess on British participation in the developments in outer space?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I know of no plans for any such statement.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the Leader of the House about the Peerage Bill? Is he aware that under the radical influence of the Conservative Party in another place significant Amendments have been made, to the discomfiture of the Government? Will he accept the assurance that there are many of us who would wish

that any man who wishes to become more common should have the right to do so? In view of the fact that there are by-elections pending this autumn, will this matter come before us before the Recess, so that it may be considered?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Certainly". In answer to the other part of his question, it is interesting to hear from the Liberal benches that if there is a conflict between the two Houses the view of the Upper House should prevail.

Mr. M. Foot: Before the Leader of the House starts to rearrange the business for Tuesday, under the plausible pressure from my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies, should not he take into account that many hon. Members think that the Public Order Bill needs to be fully and properly examined? Therefore, to satisfy his hon. Friends from Scotland, should not he move their business to another day?

Mr. Mendelson: In view of the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Power, is the Leader of the House aware that during the long and protracted Committee stage on the Pipelines Bill the danger that the public might not be properly protected was foreseen? In view of the discussions, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to publish a White Paper before the Houses rises, even though there may not be time for a debate, so that after a perusal of the White Paper there may be a debate as soon as the House returns?

Mr. Macleod: I doubt whether that would be appropriate when the matter is to be inquired into. But it is for my right hon. Friend to judge.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. C. Pannell: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to raise a matter of Privilege, of which I have given you notice. It relates to what appeared in the Evening Standard of Wednesday, 17th July, on page 14, where it is stated that a garden fete is to be held at Stansted Hall, in Essex, on 27th July, and that Mrs. Butler has asked many prominent people for gifts.
I will not go into the matter at great length, but the thing to which I object


is that she states that she is expecting a gift from the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, and, among other distinguished gentlemen, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that this is a serious matter because it is stated that
All proceeds will go to local Conservative funds.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that here there is a principle at stake. I quote from "Procedure of the House of Commons" by Redlich and Ilbert, Vol II, where, among other things, it is stated:
Above all, the member of the House of Commons who is elected to the chair ceases, from the moment of his election, to belong to any political party; this condition precedent for the Speaker's impartiality, his exclusion from the conflict of parties, has been an unwritten law of Parliament since the beginning of the nineteenth century.
I hope that there are hon. Members who deprecate any departure from that principle.
I wish to say straight away, with regard to the Lord Chief Justice, that I think that though the statement about him is in bad taste, presumably he has his own rules. I have nothing more to say about that, except to ask the House to reflect on the propriety of the Lord Chief Justice being asked to contribute any gift to a Conservative fête.
Sir, I wish to say straight away that I acquit you of any conduct derogatory to your Office—[Hon. Members: "Hear hear."] I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not treat this matter with levity, because a matter of principle is involved. Had there been a Speaker in the Chair from the Labour benches hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been up in arms about it.
It is a rule of this House, laid down by Mr. Speaker Fitzroy, that the antecedents of the Chair must never be referred to, however lurid they may be. But hare we are concerned with Mr. Speaker now. I am sure, Sir, that you have been fastidious about the conduct of your Office ever since you were called to occupy the Chair.
What I am complaining about is a statement in a newspaper which may be read by ignorant persons who do not know you so well as hon. Members of this House do, and who might draw a bad inference and a wrong conclusion. The inference which might be drawn is that you have departed from the strict code which must be assumed by everyone who comes to your Office and I want to say that I think the statement which appeared in the Evening Standard surely must be as impertinent as it is unwarranted.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a serious matter, and I hope that the House will appreciate that. I hope you will rule that there is prima facie a breach of Privilege, or at least that you will stigmatise this conduct as reprehensible and such as calls for an apology. The independence and impartiality that has evolved over the centuries on the part of the Chair is something which we in this place have to safeguard either from the wives of prominent politicians or from the columns of the Press. Any assault on your integrity is a contempt of the House, Mr. Speaker, and, therefore, I ask you to rule.

Copy of newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with a copy of the newspaper. I will consider his complaint in the light of the advice available to me, and the precedents, and I will rule tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WATER RESOURCES BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 50, page 49, line 38, and the proposed Clause (Application by owner of fishing rights for revocation or variation of licence) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Keith Joseph.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Question amended, by adding at the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 14, and Clause 12, page 12, lines 12, 13. 15, 23, 27, 30 and 39, and page 13, lines 16, 22, 27, 34 and 35, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Cledwyn Hughes".—[Mr. C. Hughes.]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-Gray in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(FUNCTIONS OF MINISTERS)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out "the".

The Chairman: With this Amendment I think that it would be convenient also to discuss the Amendments Nos. 141 to 153 and the Amendment to Clause 12, page 13, line 30.

Mr. Hughes: All these Amendments, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, are designed to the same end. That end is the setting up of a water resources board for Wales along the lines of the Board now proposed in the Bill as it stands for England and Wales jointly. We debated this question at some length at our first sitting in Standing Committee on 2nd May. I do not propose, therefore, to speak at great length, because the arguments were fully deployed in Committee.
I thought that at that time my hon. Friends and I made a good case and that

we had persuaded the Minister of the justice of our cause. He then spoke, as reported in column 34 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee, of:
putting into the Bill something of a possible relationship between the Water Resources Board and the Welsh Water Advisory Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F. 2nd May, 1963; c. 34.]
We then withdrew our Amendments.
In the event, the Minister has done nothing, and, if the Bill goes through as it is we in Wales will be governed under the provisions of Clause 12 by a joint board for England and Wales, a board of eight members, one of whom will be a Welshman.
To summarise briefly the arguments in favour of these Amendments, the first, and I think strongest, argument is that Wales is a country with ample water resources. Water is one of our national assets and over the years it has been taken from Wales to meet the needs of great industrial centres of population. I do not believe that the great majority of Welsh people resent that in any way. We understand that we have a surplus of water and, all things being equal, we are not averse to water being taken over the Border to meet the requirements of others. But unfortunately, things have not been equal. Without regard for national planning, without adequate consultation, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members from Wales, and in fact of public opinion, through the machinery of Private Bills water has been taken in enormous quantities from Wales.

4.15 p.m.

To be quite fair, we must recognise that the powers now vested in the river authorities under the provisions of this Bill—for example, the introduction of the licensing system and the power to construct reservoirs—removes some of our grievances. The Bill contains safeguards for Wales, as for other parts of the country—for the Lake District, for example. Nevertheless, the feeling is strongly held in Wales that we should have a board, responsible, of course, to the Minister, to plan our own resources, a board which must be consulted about the best use of water resources of Wales.

If the Minister says that Wales cannot be considered as a unit—I think


that this is one of the arguments he used when speaking on this matter in Committee—I should point out to him that in its Report the Welsh Water Advisory Committee did consider Wales as a unit. The Advisory Committee was requested by the Minister's predecessor to look at the water resources of Wales. It conducted an hydrological survey and published a report, which is known to the Minister and to hon. Members. It was a first-class report. It dealt with Wales as an hydrological unit, dividing Wales into a number of zones.

In its deailed survey, the Welsh Water Advisory Committee considered Wales as a country. The Minister will probably say that we are flying in the face of the facts of geography, that geography is against us because the Severn flows from Wales into England and the Wye flows from Wales into England. Of course that is so; this is a fact we cannot contest, but this kind of thing happens all over the world. It does not happen merely between Wales and England. The Danube flows through the Iron Curtain and a number of countries. If the Minister speaks of administrative difficulties which arise primarily because certain river authorities are in both England and Wales, one must accept at once that there is superficial merit in the argument.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): River boards, not river authorities.

Mr. Hughes: I agree, there are river boards through whose areas the border between England and Wales runs. There is some merit in the argument, but if one probes deeply one finds that the argument in favour of setting up a Welsh board is strong because the areas of these authorities which overlap both countries have the strength of representation mostly on the English side of the Border. I am surprised that the Minister and his advisers, who have had since Easter to consider this matter and it was raised on Second Reading, have not been able to devise some machinery which could have overcome these administrative obstacles.
There was recently published a report by the Scottish Water Advisory Committee. In that report there was a recommendation that a water development council should be set up for Scotland.

I have no doubt that that recommendation will be accepted by the Government. If there is a will there is a way in these administrative matters. We need a board in Wales with which the Water Resources Board could consult on planning and conservation and to which the river authorities of Wales could go for guidance.
That would go some way towards meeting us even if the Minister could not see his way to setting up the board for which they are asking, a board with the same powers as the joint board. If he could have set up an authority which would stand somewhere between the Welsh Advisory Committee and the Water Resources Board and be available for consultation, that would have gone a long way to meet our request.
We may be told by the Minister that everything will work out in practice, but I would remind the Minister of the old maxim that not only must justice be done but justice must: manifestly appear to be done, and in this matter of the Welsh board we feel that the Minister has let us clown. After all, he is Minister for Welsh Affairs, and when his office was created we were told by the Prime Minister that one of his functions would be to listen to the pulse of Wales and to be informed of public opinion in Wales and to advise the Cabinet about what that public opinion is. Now public opinion in Wales has, for a very long time, been in favour of setting up a Welsh water board.
In Standing Committee we argued these things moderately and reasonably, but, unfortunately, the Minister has failed to meet our requests. I hope that, even at this late stage, for the Bill has to go yet again to another place, possibly there may be opportunity for second thoughts. I cannot believe that it is not possible for a body to be set up in Wales which will look at Wales as a whole, which can consult the Water Resources Board, and which will be in touch with the river authorities in Wales. This is what we need. This is what we are asking for.
I may say that the Opposition, in principle, agree with this proposal that there should be a board for Wales. If this is not done now this will certainly be done some time in the future. I am


sorry that the opportunity is not being taken now, when the machinery being set up under the Bill is starting its work.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I also am very disappointed that the Minister has not put down an Amendment to meet this case, which was argued in Standing Committee very reasonably, when I thought that he would at least consider the question that there should be an advisory committee. But the Minister has not given us any Amendment at all about it.

Sir K. Joseph: Of course, the Bill does not alter the fact that the Welsh Advisory Water Committee does exist at the moment. It is not stopped by the Bill in any way.

Mr. S. O. Davies: But will not the recommendations or the requests of the Advisory Committee be completely overruled by the seven to one majority over Wales?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) is talking of an advisory committee under the Water Resources Board.

Mr. Watkins: I am not talking of the committee which has made a hydro-logical survey. I was hoping the Minister would have an advisory committee to be given the same powers as the Water Resources Board. That is what we had in mind in Standing Committee. We reluctantly accepted, then, the advice given to us, and withdrew our Amendment. I am sorry that the Minister has not helped us since. In Standing Committee, the Bill had a favourable reception, and the Standing Committee was a happy Committee; but now the Minister has come out of it the worse in the sense that he is the Minister for Welsh Affairs and as such should be concerned with Welsh affairs, and in this case he has done nothing for them.
The right hon. Gentleman put forward the difficulty that the rivers Dee, Severn and Wye were rivers flowing through English counties, but that is not an insuperable difficulty and it could be overcome very well. Did he consider that there should be joint consultation between the Welsh board and the English Water Resources Board on matters affecting those river basins? There could be coordination in planning between them.

Does the Minister think that there should not be joint consultation?
I am most anxious that there should be a water resources board for Wales, and I hope very much that hon. Members, Welsh Members, in particular, will support the proposition. The majority of the Welsh Members are in favour of it. This is the remarkable thing, that despite the fact that the majority of the 36 Members for Wales are in favour of having this Welsh water resources board, at the end of this discussion we shall be defeated by the English people in Parliament.
As the Member for Brecon and Radnor I am particularly concerned about the inroads made upon Welsh interests in the last few weeks. The Water Resources Board for England and Wales will not be able to deal with these questions. The first that my constituents knew about inroads to be made was when they read about them in the local Press. It is a ridiculous situation when not even the Member for Parliament for the area, or the chairman of the local planning committee, has a word said to them about them.
With all respect to the board for England and Wales I must say that it will not be the proper body to consider Welsh interests. We need a Welsh board. I am not an expert on the geography of the river basins, but we have here an expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones), who has written a book on the geography of Wales, and who is very willing to give the Minister advice in that direction.
I cannot understand why our proposal should be turned down altogether. We, the Labour Party in Wales, stand for a Welsh water board to meet the situation. We would have been very glad to welcome the advisory committee the Minister so quickly jumped up about, but I am not concerned with that. I am concerned that we should have people from Wales who intimately know these problems and who can deal with them and with the inroads which have been made or which will be made into Wales and the sort of row we have had in the Principality.
I should have thought all Welshmen would have been interested in this proposal, but there are no Liberal or Conservative Members here. Are they interested? Anyway, I hope that my colleagues here will make a very


vigorous protest to this Minister about this proposal. In Standing Committee, we understood that he would do something about this, but nothing has been done.

4.30 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I support very strongly this Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). I would remind the Minister, if he needs reminding—I am sure that he does not—that this is a matter upon which Welsh public opinion is extremely sensitive. In fact, the Minister is treading on very dangerous ground. We have had a very unfortunate and unhappy past in regard to this matter.
The Minister said in the Standing Committee that the real issue, subject to the national interest, was that the people who live in an area whence water might be taken should have a strong say in the disposal of that water. That is an admirable principle, upon which all hon. Members on this side of the Committee will agree, but how does the Minister carry that principle out in the Bill? He does not carry it out at all. What, in the provisions of the Bill, constitutes a strong say for Wales? It provides for Wales one member out of eight on the England and Wales Water Resources Board. Seven to one. Those are heavy odds even for a Welshman, and that is saying quite something.
I should like the Minister to consider the contingencies which may arise and which may have to be brought before the Water Resources Board. Suppose there was disagreement, which may well take place, between the English and the Welsh representatives on a very important matter. We have had unfortunate experiences and Tryweryn is the most important of all. That was an example of the autocratic overriding of Welsh interests and the views of all Welsh Members.
I can quite understand that the licensing provisions under the Bill assist in providing some sort of safeguard, and we welcome this safeguard. But if disagreement arises and is brought before the board, there will be a seven-to-one English majority. I do not know whether the Minister calls that a strong say, but, certainly, we do not. Imagine disagreement between one Welsh county and another. This also is possible. At this

moment, there are discussions—I put it no higher than that—between Carmarthenshire and West Glamorgan about the provision of urgently-needed water resources. This scheme involves the flooding of valleys, farms and valuable agricultural land. I hope that these difficulties will be resolved between the local authorities concerned, but in the end the Minister will have to decide between these two administrations.
The Minister has spoken about administrative difficulties. I would have thought that his task would have been made very much easier if, when he has to face such difficulties as these he had advice straight from a Welsh water resources board which would know the circumstances and the conditions, which would have far greater opportunities of contacting Welsh local opinion, and which would know the terrain and be able to visit it, and so on—things which the seven English members would probably have no opportunity to do. I would have thought that if he got advice straight from the dragon's mouth, so to speak, it would have been a great advantage to the Minister in an administrative sense.
One of the points the Minister has advanced in this matter of the common rivers between England and Wales, particularly with regard to the Severn, the Dee and the Wye. It is a remarkable thing that just because these rivers flow to a certain extent between England and Wales there should be seven English Members and only one Welsh member. I fail to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. After all, these are among the most important rivers which serve Wales, and are only a very minimal part of the rivers which serve England. I would have thought that that was not an argument which would stand up to scrutiny. The Minister intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend and said "What about the Welsh Water Advisory Committee?" He said that it was still there. What does he mean to do about it?
If the right hon. Gentleman is putting this to us as an alternative to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, we ought to know a great deal more about the powers that he proposes to give it. Does he propose to consult it? Does he propose to use that committee? Does he propose to give it


a new status, haying regard to the provisions of the Bill? We on this side have a very great respect for that committee. It has done a remarkable job of work. But we cannot see why, if the Minister is offering this as a concession, he cannot make this a statutory body under the Bill. It seems to me that it is making nonsense of it to suggest that this is a concession which would be satisfactory to hon. Members on this side.
We realise that water is an enormously important natural resource in Wales. As my hon. Friend said, we do not wish in this matter to be selfish at all. We realise that we have resources over and above our own needs and demands, and we are ready to co-operate and provide resources for English cities and English needs. But we feel that the first priority—I think that this is a perfectly rational priority and a reasonable point of view—should be for Wales and the needs of Wales, and that we should have first call upon our own water resources. We believe that unless we have a Welsh water board statutorily constituted under the Bill we shall not secure that in future.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I should like to support my hon. Friends on two points which they made. First, that there is no reluctance in Wales to provide water for the rest of the United Kingdom. I am quite sure that the Welsh people would wish that there should be an equitable and orderly distribution of the undoubted surplus which at present, and for the foreseeable future, the Principality enjoys.
The second is the intense feeling in Wales about the way in which water is abstracted from the Principality to serve the needs of the cities of the plains. Water is one of our few natural resources, and we have an abundance of it. The hydrological survey, to which reference has already been made, states that at least 2,000 million gallons a day are surplus to all foreseeable requirements in Wales. We want to get rid of it, because it can be a nuisance unless it is collected and distributed for proper purposes.
Our point is that the collation, augmentation and distribution of Welsh water should be in such a way that it benefits both Wales and England. Up to now the procedure followed has not done that. What has happened? As my hon. Friend

the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) so rightly said, the large cities in England have literally bulldozed their way into Welsh valleys, uprooting entire communities and submerging large acreages of valuable land, without proper consultation and, indeed, without proper compensation to the people concerned.
Tryweryn was a dreadful example of this sort of dictation which was practised on a community in the very cultural and geographical heart of Wales. Our memories of what happened in Tryweryn die very hard indeed. One would have thought that the Government would have learnt from the example of what happened and is happening in Tryweryn and would have written into the Bill a provision whereby they, the board and the Minister would be properly advised as to the position in Wales hydrologically and psychologically.
The Minister will get all the water he wants from Wales if he first wins the good will of the Welsh people, but if he does not get the good will of our people, he may not get all the water he wants. It is still problematical—I put it no higher than that—whether the Tryweryn scheme will come to full fruition or not. Some of us warned the Government at the time the Bill was going through the House against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Welsh Members of Parliament that there might be serious difficulty about promulgating the Bill. Today we see that there is this difficulty.
Our position is that we cannot accept that the difficulty before the Minister is one of technicality and administration. During the debates in the Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that one cannot divide a river if it flows from Wales to England. But the Government divide the rivers on the Scottish border. If an objection to the proposal for a separate Welsh board is that one cannot divide a river at the point between the two countries, why is it that when the Tweed, Glen, Liddel and Esk rise in Scotland and find their estuaries in England there is evidently no technical or administrative difficulty?
The difficulty is political. It is the Government's attitude to Wales. That is what lies at the root of this unwillingness to recognise the Principality as the country and nation that it is, and their desire to treat it, as often as they can get away


with it, as a kind of milch cow to serve the interests of the larger conurbations of England.
If it is true that it is impossible technically lo stop the operation of the Water Resources Board proposed by the Bill at the Welsh border, why is it possible to stop its operation at the Scottish border, and, indeed, to introduce this afternoon on the Notice Paper a separate provision for consultation between the English Water Resources Board and the appropriate Scottish water authorities? If the Minister can introduce a Clause this afternoon to enable the Water Resources Board in cases of difficulty of overlapping between Scotland and England to consult on such matters with the appropriate Scottish water authorities, why cannot he do the same thing in regard to problems of overlap between Wales and England?
When we take over and sit on the Government side of the House, we shall do this for Wales. We have adopted the principle that Welsh water resources shall be organised by a Welsh authority so that not only are Welsh needs properly satisfied but the exportable surplus is made available to other parts of the United Kingdom, and made available with the approval and co-operation of the Welsh people.

4.45 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I apologise to hon. Members who may still wish to speak. I am merely intervening to put the Government's point of view on this important group of Amendments. Nothing would please a Minister for Welsh Affairs more than to be able to come to the Committee and make a concession which would please all hon. Members from Welsh constituencies. Therefore, my strong preference would have been to find some way, as I undertook to try to do in the Standing Committee, which would enable the desire of hon. Members who have already spoken to be achieved.
But I said that I would do this only if it could be done without making nonsense, and I am sure that Welsh self-respect is far too strong to wish the Government to devise, as it were, an ineffective mechanism simply to be able to claim that there is a special instrument for Welsh water devised parallel to or within the Water Resources Board

that covers England and Wales. It is because I have not been able to find a really effective way of doing what hon. Members want that there is nothing on the Notice Paper.
The difference between the two points of view is based to some extent—to a large extent, I believe—on a misunderstanding. The Water Resources Board, which is at the heart of the whole Bill, a board which will review, survey and advise upon the new function of conservation over the whole of England and Wales, is a technical body. It is not a psychological body, as the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) suggested.

Mr. G. Roberts: I referred to it as being both a hydrological and psychological body.

Sir K. Joseph: I take the hon. Gentleman's point In a striking phrase, he said that he wanted a solution at once hydro-logical and psychological.

Mr. Roberts: That would prevent schemes of this sort resulting in the imprisonment of young Welsh men who feel deeply about the manner in which Welsh water resources are abstracted for English use.

Sir K. Joseph: No. It is because I fully weigh the significance of the word "psychological" that I will explain why the Amendments on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and his hon. Friends would not meet the case of a solution which would be at once hydrological and psychological. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the argument.
The Water Resources Board is very largely to give technical advice. It is scarcely an executive body at all. It has power to give directions about gauging schemes and certain research; but all the rest of its power flows from its right to give advice to the Minister, whereupon the Minister may, if river authorities prove unco-operative, use his directing power. The Water Resources Board is, therefore, a technical body, and I hope that hon. Members will bear that strongly in mind.
As a technical body, the Water Resources Board will include at least one Welsh member. There may be other


men or women who happen to command one of the special knowledges or the expertise which will be required on the Board who may well be Welsh. That may well happen; but there will any way be a minimum of one Welsh member. To the extent that I am making the case that the Board is a technical board, that Welsh member is not in him self or herself the final safeguard for Welsh interests. Nobody is pretending that that is so. Here, then, is the Board that at the moment covers all the water resources of England and Wales. Hon. Members on all sides are agreed—

Mr. James Griffiths: Why is this not so in respect of Scotland?

Sir K. Joseph: I am coming to that. I shall not burke any of the arguments.
Hon. Members all recognise that the people of England and Wales share the river basins of the Dee, the Wye and the Severn. That is an intractable geo graphical and physical fact. Therefore, if the Board's job is to give technical advice, it must be able to give technical advice over the whole sweep of England and Wales, because England and Wales share some of the water resources of the combined area.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) very properly asks me why this is not true of Scotland. The fact is that the water links between England and Scotland are only small stretches of relatively small rivers, except for the Tweed, which is totally excluded by the Bill from the area of any river authority. In other words, there is, in fact, very nearly a severance in water terms—very nearly, not precisely—between England and Scotland, whereas between England and Wales there is a large common area served by the same rivers and the same river basins.
Either the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) or the hon. Member for Anglesey leant heavily in his speech on the hydrological report of the Welsh Advisory Water Committee. But, in fact, to make hydrological sense of Wales, the Committee had to divide Wales arbitrarily into five units, which covered less or more than Wales, in order to find coherent water areas. It is not true that Wales is a hydrological unit on its own. This leaves us, there-

fore, with the problem to which I paid, as hon. Members would wish me to, the very greatest heed.
It is the psychological, the political problem. Here, it is important to reflect again that the Water Resources Board will be a technical and not, broadly, an executive body. The executive decisions will not be taken by the Board, be it for England and Wales together or for England alone or Wales alone. Those decisions will be taken by the river authorities in the first place and, in reserve, by the Minister.
It is the decisions which are so important psychologically. Psychology and politics do not enter into technical advice. That advice is what the Water Resources Board will have to mobilise, but the decisions taken on it will be highly psychological and political.

Mr. G. Roberts: But is it not the case that the Water Resources Board will have the right to direct and, indeed, compel the river authorities to get on with certain jobs?

Sir K. Joseph: No. The hon. Member is taking an unwarrantable short cut. A river authority which has been given advice will be required to report on what it intends to do and on the progress of its programme to the Water Resources Board, but the Board will have to invoke the Minister's power of direction for any order given to a river authority. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to make that plain.
So it is the river authorities—which, in Wales, will be completely local bodies, although I agree that there will be some with joint representation from both sides of the border—and the Minister who will have to take decisions on the technical advice of the Water Resources Board. Of course, it is true that the decisions will deeply affect the citizens of each area concerned. Of course, it is also true that hon. Members are seriously concerned about the impact of particular works on the cultural way of life, the society and the traditions of any particular area.
But their views on this should not be expressed to the Water Resources Board, be it Welsh, or English and Welsh, because it will be a technical body. Those views must be expressed to the river


authorities or to the Minister and it is for them to take these views into account. A river authority will receive or take advice from the Board. It will make up its mind whether or not it wishes to follow that advice. Suppose that it decides to ignore that advice for a particular water development. It would be a very strange Minister who would overrule the river authority by using his directing power without seriously taking into account local feelings which he might be outraging.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. On the whole, this is a good Bill. But psychology enters into this aspect. He has spoken of a Minister rejecting advice. Is he not aware that a good deal of the anxiety in Wales is because the present Home Secretary, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, did go against the voice of the majority of hon. Members representing Wales on the Tryweryn issue?

Sir K. Joseph: Be that as it may, the point I am seeking to make is that approval will be needed before the Minister's directing power can be used to overrule a river authority, whether there is a Welsh board or not, because, under the way of Government we have, it is the Minister in this House who makes the decisions, be he advised by an English and Welsh board or by a Welsh board only.
I am making a logical argument. I have said that if a river authority refuses to take technically sound advice because of local reactions, it would be a strange Minister who would use his directing power and ignore local feelings. That would be true whether there were a Welsh board or not. The technical advice would have been given. Surely we can all accept that a Welsh board set up to give technical advice would give it.
It is not the duty of a board under the Bill to give psychological or political advice. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will allow me to finish my argument. But if a river authority decides to accept technical advice and to make a development or to project a development that will offend local feelings, then it cannot go ahead on its own without ministerial approval. It will need that approval for necessary compulsory pur-

chase orders or for loan sanctions, or whatever it may be. Anything on a substantial scale will have to have ministerial approval.
Once again, before a decision is finally taken, local opinion will have its proper part to play and will be taken into account. Hon. Members must recognise that, whether there is a Welsh board or an English and Welsh board, it is ultimately the Minister—the Government—who will have to take the decision. The Water Resources Board will give technical advice, and technical advice only.
There is still the question of what part will be played by the Welsh Advisory Water Committee. In the White Paper, the Government undertook that as soon as the Water Resources Board was set up discussion would take place to consider relations between the two bodies. That undertaking will be fulfilled. But I must, sadly, tell the Committee that, having looked at the technical duties of the Board it does not seem to me to make sense, bearing in mind that the three large river basins are common to both England and Wales, to set up a parallel body which would have, by some complicated and laborious method of coordination, to cover ground common to both. Nor would it be sense to set up a sub-committee of the Board to be in charge of Welsh water technical advice which, on important matters, would have to go by two stages—to the sub-committee and then to the main committee of the Board. This would not be a sensible mechanism.
It seems that the only honest thing to do is to remind the House that the Board will be a technical board with technical functions and that the final decisions will be taken either by the river authorities—which will, as far as practical, be largely Welsh for Wales—or by the Minister whether there is a Welsh board or not.
I hope that I have explained why I have not put an amendment into the Bill on this matter. I cannot expect hon. Members to agree at once with what I have done, but I hope that they will recognise that there are serious technical arguments which they must overcome, and I hope that they will also recognise in particular that the Board will be a technical body and not a psychological or political organisation. All the psychological and political decisions, even if


these Amendments were accepted, would still have to be taken by the river authorities and the Minister.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: My right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed the voice of Wales on this problem. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has been almost cruel to the sentiments expressed in this debate for those sentiments are overwhelmingly those of the Welsh people. I rise only to emphasise that aspect of the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to technical advice. We have heard the word "technical" without end this after-noon. He should realise that other problems and advice on other aspects will come to him. The problem is not wholly technical. He has been the Minister for Wales long enough to know the feeling which has been generated and the sense of unity and community and nationhood which still exists in Wales and which he must not ignore.
I am confident of one thing—I say this not in the form of a threat, but as a statement of fact—that we have had this experience far too often in our country and the Minister will regret his obstinate attitude towards these Amendments. The case for them has been overwhelming. He will wake up to the fact that this is not merely a geographical or technical or even hydrological problem. It is also a human problem and we resent the callous indifference adopted by our so-called Minister for Wales and the Government of which he is just the pathetic instrument he has shown himself to be this afternoon. I am disgusted by his attitude.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I listened to the Minister with great interest, but I was not convinced. I emphasise that we support a Welsh water board not for the use of water exclusively for Wales, but for the economic and geographical development of water supplies for England as well.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman's argument was based on the fact that three of the longest rivers which rise in Wales, the Dee, the Severn and the Wye, enter English territory, and that consequently a Welsh water board is a difficult technical proposition. So the

question is often asked whether these rivers are Welsh rivers. I do not wish to emphasise this point unduly, but in geography we usually give names to geographical features according to their points of origin. For example, when winds come from the south-west, they are called south-westerlies and because the trade winds come from the north-east, they are called the North-East Trades. I would be on logical ground if I said that because the rivers Dee, Severn and Wye come from Wales, they are Welsh rivers.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Member saying that the Rhine is Swiss?

Mr. Jones: I said that I would not press the argument very far, but no one could deny that these rivers, whether they flow into English territory or not, are integral features of the geography of Wales. There is an Irish song which has the refrain:
Where the mountains of Mourne sweep down to the sea".
I would say that geographically the boundary between England and Wales broadly follows the lines where the mountains of Wales sweep down into the plains of England, the plains of Cheshire, Shropshire and Herefordshire. When the Welsh rivers, the Dee and the Severn and the Wye, enter the English plains, they are then deep, meandering rivers. These are not the areas where reservoirs are likely to be built. When Liverpool and Birmingham want water, they do not go to the English plains for water supplies. They go to the upper reaches of the so-called English rivers in the Welsh hills. The Tryweryn,Vyrnwy and Elan Valley schemes are typical examples.
Impounding water can and should perform two functions. It should guarantee a supply of water to centres of population by means of reservoirs and piped supplies; but, of equal importance, the reservoirs can control the flow of water in the rivers. That in its turn can do two things, and the Tryweryn scheme is an example. It can guarantee a supply of water in the rivers to supply cities, and it can obviate flooding of valleys and English pastures in the lowlands of Cheshire, Shropshire and Hereford.
The point that I am trying to make is that all these schemes to control the flow of water in the rivers and to form reservoirs and so on will be undertaken


on the Welsh side of the border. Consequently, it is fair to say that that is a strong argument for a Welsh water board as being the only board competent to undertake this task.
The Minister has argued that rivers flow and are in this respect unlike trees, which grow. It is true that a Welsh water board could not stop the flow of rivers. They would still flow, but they would flow to better advantage. The Minister said that there were technical difficulties, but I am not convinced that such difficulties stand in the way of this project which is so dear to the heart of Welsh Members. We find so many people hiding behind so-called technical difficulties. If a petrol pipeline can be laid from Ellesmere Port under the English Channel to France in wartime, I see no reason for accepting the technical difficulties in this case.
We are not asking the House to hand over this authority to a foreign Power. This is not a case of Switzerland handing something over to Germany. This is a case of a part of Britain, a Principality in Britain, undertaking the task of organizing the water supplies not only for Wales, but for Wales and England generally. The present task is to generate and create goodwill on this matter, and the best way to do so is to accept the Amendments in all good faith.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am very sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendments, and I am even more sorry that he has found it impossible—although I do not understand why—to do what in Standing Committee he suggested he might do about this matter. He said that he was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) had rejected his proposal that
we might consider putting into the Bill something of a possible relationship between the Water Resources Board and the Welsh Advisory Water Committee."—[OFFICIAL Report. Standing Committee F, 2nd May, 1963; c. 34.]
There may be technical difficulties, but I ask him now to consider the matter again. He said that Scotland was outside because less water came to England from Scotland than from Wales. This is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of gallons.
If we are to take this on a national basis, why not take in Scotland as well

as Wales? The answer is that Scotland is left out because this is a political issue. The message which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to Wales is that if the Welsh people want a separate Welsh Board they must emulate Scotland. They must have their own Lord Advocate and have their own legal system. The right hon. Gentleman does not sit for a Welsh constituency, but his colleagues will have to consider carefully the implications of what the Minister is doing under this Bill.
We in Wales are blessed with ample water supplies, and we do not take a selfish view about them. We do not regard our water as being for our use only. We do not take the view that nobody else should benefit from our supplies but we are concerned to ensure that our legitimate interests are considered.
Leaving cut the technical aspects of the situation, and looking to the future, I say to my friends in West Glamorgan who are coming to my native county for water that they can have all the water they want without damaging any village or community or running counter to any local sentiments, but it will cost a little more to get it. There is an alternative scheme in Carmarthenshire, but it costs more in terms of money. The scheme referred to the Minister will cost more in terms of human sentiment in West Wales, in Carmarthenshire, in Pembroke shire, in Cardiganshire and in Mid-Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman came to the Eisteddfod lust year, and I hope that he will come this year. He knows the areas which are to be impounded. This is not a question of acres. It is a question of deeply rooted communities, and it is important that the Committee should realise that these communities are the last bulwark of our language and culture.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority. Surely he is making my case for me? He is saying that there are alternative methods of getting water. A Water Resources Board, be it English and Welsh, or Welsh only, would set out alternative methods. It would not decide which to use. That decision would be taken by the relevant river authority and, if necessary, by the Minister. It would not be taken by the Water Resources Board.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept that and I do not want to exaggerate the point. My party has proposals which go far beyond those contained in the Bill. Our proposals deal not only with the technical aspects of the problem, but with the whole question of the supply of water. We do not object to giving water to Birmingham and Liverpool. They will come to us because they have money, but the water they take will run through villages which are getting their supplies by the method that was used way back in 1840 and we consider this to be a stupid way of handling our water supplies.
I agree that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that the resources of England and Wales are used sensibly, but we must distribute the water sensibly too. It is not sensible that water should flow perhaps even from England to Wales, through villages so that the towns get it while the villages do not.
I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter to a Division. Technically the Minister may have the best of the argument, but as Minister for Welsh Affairs he must know that it would be better for him to overcome all these technical difficulties, and they certainly can be overcome. It would be better, for once, is this modern society of ours, to pay some small regard to human feeling and sentiment, which we consider are worth preserving.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for what he has just said. He, more than any single living Welshman, speaks for the people of Wales, and I am sure that the Minister will be in no doubt about the feelings of Welsh Members and Welsh people on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman based his argument purely on the fact that the Water Resources Board is a technical body. It is a technical body, and it will give advice to the Minister on technical matters, but that technical advice will have profound psychological implications. Perhaps I might put one example to the Committee. A river authority in Wales may decide against an application. The Water Resources

Board may decide in favour of it and so advise the Minister under the provisions of subsection (2,e) which lays down that one of its functions is
to encourage and assist river authorities in the formulation of such plans as the Board think necessary for augmenting water resources in a river authority area by transferring water from another river authority area.
In other words, one of the functions of the Board is to advise the Minister on whether water should be transferred from one area to another.
With whom will the Minister agree? Will he agree with the Water Resources Board which is to consist of seven Englishmen and one Welshman, or with the river authority in Wales? This is the core of the problem. If, in Wales, we had a Board which the Welsh people knew had been consulted, they would feel satisfied that their interests had been properly taken into account by a body of Welshmen. This is the psychology of the whole problem, and if the Minister does not understand this, I am disappointed in him.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not want to set up an ineffective mechanism. We have never thought that his office was am effective mechanism. We have always argued in favour of a Minister with executive authority, which we would consider to be an effective body, but we put up with an office which we hold to be an ineffective mechanism.
It would be better if the Minister were to think again about this. He must not reduce this to a matter of argument and polemics. He must consider whether he can do something to help the people of Wales. I am certain that beneath the right hon. Gentleman's undoubtedly able argument there is a deep feeling of sympathy for the Welsh people. This is his opportunity to show it. The arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman are not good enough. There is an overwhelming case for the setting up of a Welsh board, dictated by the deep feelings of the great majority of the Welsh people, and I believe that the Government should bow to their desires. If they do not, it will be further proof that the Government have no interest in the Principality.

Question put, That "the" stand part of the Clause: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 161.

Division No. 167.]
AYES
[5.19 p.m.


Aitken, Sir William
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Allason, James
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdate)


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesf'd)
Percival, Ian


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hay, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Berkeley, Humphry
Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bingham, R. M.
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bishop, F. P.
Hollingworth, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Black, Sir Cyril
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Radmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Box, Donald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
James, David
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)


Buck, Antony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bullard, Denys
Johnson, Dr, Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, Ronald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Sharples, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kirk, Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Lagden, Godfrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cole, Norman
Leavey, J. A.
Stodart, J. A.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, F. V.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne
Litchfield, Capt. John
Temple, John M.


Crawley, Aldan
Longbottom, Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Curran, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaren, Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turner, Colin


du Cann, Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Sir James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Walder, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, Denzil
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wise, A. R.


Gammans, Lady
Morgan, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham-Cooke, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Ian Fraser and




Mr. Hugh Rees.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Brockway, A. Fenner
Crosland, Anthony


Barnett, Guy
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Darling, George


Benson, Sir George
Callaghan, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Chapman, Donald
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W.(Leics. S.W.)
Cliffe, Michael
Deer, George


Boyden, James
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Dempsey, James




Dodds, Norman
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Driberg, Tom
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney
King, Dr. Horace
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, K.)


Evans, Albert
Ledger, Ron
Ross, William


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Mles Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Foley, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Silhin, John


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lubbok, Erie
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McBride, N.
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McCann, John
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
McInnes, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Ginsburg, David
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cordon Walter, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
McLeavy, Frank
Steele, Thomas


Greenwood, Anthony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPhersan, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stonehouse, John


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Hannan, William
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Swingler, Stephen


Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie
Taveme, D.


Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Healey, Denis
Marsh, Richard
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Hilton, A. V.
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Holman, Percy
Mitchison, G. R.
Wade, Donald


Holt, Arthur
Moody, A. S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, Arthur
Warbey, William


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mulley, Frederick
Watkins, Tudor


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Walls, William (Walsall, N.)


Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, B. K,
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, B. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Proctor, W. T.
Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Danes.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50.—(MINISTER MAY INDEMNIFY RIVER AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN CASES.)

5.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 49, line 38, at the end to add:
(3) Where under section (Application by owner of fishing rights for revocation or variation of licence) of this Act—

(a) the Minister determines that alicence shall be revoked or varied, and in consequence of that determination compensation is payable by a river authority in respect of the revocation or variation of the licence, or
(b) the Minister determines that a licence shall be revoked or varied, and in consequence of that determination compensation is payable by the river authority under subsection (7) of that section in a case where the licence was granted in compliance with a direction given by the Minister, or
(c) the Minister determines that a licence shall not be revoked or varied, and in consequence of that determination compensation is payable by a river authority under subsection (8) of that section,


the last preceding subsection shall have effect in relation to that compensation as it has effect in relation to compensation payable in the circumstances mentioned in the last preceding subsection.
Am I correct in thinking, Sir Robert, that I can take with this Amendment the new Clause—"Application by owner of fishing rights for revocation or variation of licence."

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Yes, if that is agreeable to the Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: In Committee hon. Members on both sides were much concerned with following up the implications of the powerful speech made on Second Reading by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) about the effect of the removal of the common law rights, particularly in the interim stage between the second appointed day and the determining of the minimum acceptable flow for any piece of water. In Committee it became more and more clear


that what was worrying hon. Members was that during this interim period damage might be done by abstractions lawfully taking place as a result of a licence given by a river authority, to such an extent that sensitive fishery interests might be ruined beyond redemption.
The Government undertook to consider whether anything could be done to safeguard this position. This new Clause is the result of the Government's consideration. What it does is to enable the representatives of a fishery interest, during the period running from one year after the second appointed day until a minimum acceptable flow is applied to any particular stream, to seek the authority of the Minister to vary or revoke any licence which may have been granted for abstraction from that stream if the fishery interest can show damage to itself.
There is power within the Clause for the Minister to take a decision in the public interest on the conflict between the fishery interest and the abstractor. As a result of the Minister's decision, several alternative results may ensue. The Minister may decide that the interest of the abstractor is so predominant in the public interest that it must prevail, that the abstraction must continue, and that therefore the fishery interest must be sacrificed. If that is the decision, then compensation must be paid to the fishery interest on a pre-depreciation basis (with recourse to the Lands Tribunal) by the river authority, and the river authority, and the river authority may, but not must, be indemnified by the Minister.

Mr. John M. Temple: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, would he like to say whether any compensation will accrue to those fishery interests which have not a riparian interest? I am thinking of the salmon netsmen in the estuarial waters.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that I can answer that off the cuff. I shall have to write to my hon. Friend, I am sorry, but I cannot answer straight away on that.
I am reminded that I made a slip when I spoke of one year after the second appointed day. It should be one year after the granting of the licence. I beg the Committee's pardon.
If the Minister's decision is that the fishery interests should prevail and that

the licence should be varied or revoked, then, of course, the licence holder will be compensated by the river authority, and again the river authority, though not entitled to indemnification by the Minister as of right, will be able to seek such indemnification if the Minister so decides. This, therefore, is the safeguard which the Government suggest by this new Clause should be written into the Bill.
Certain of my hon. Friends have put an Amendment on the Order Paper, and I hope that it will be proper for me to refer to it in my opening speech. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas Tooth) have put down an Amendment which will oblige the Minister only to decide in favour of a licence holder if his licence is essential in the public interest. I think I made it plain that the Minister will, in fact, be deciding this invidious conflict by relation to the public interest. What my hon. Friends wish him to do is to decides it only in favour of the licence holder if the licence holder is abstracting water, in what they call the national interest, and cannot satisfy that interest in any other way.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. It would leave the problem as a very difficult one indeed for the Minister. Do they really mean that a fishery interest, however small, however new, should prevail against the licensed abstraction, however important, however urgent, however irreplaceable? And how do they define "national interest"? Almost all the uses of water that are important have national implications. If an industrialist wants water, the implication is employment. We would all, I am sure, consider employment in the public interest. If a water undertaker wants water for the public water supply, for drinking, cooking and hygiene purposes, that is in the public interest. If a farmer wants water for agriculture that, largely, is in the public interest.
I would have said that the Minister's discretion is better left unfettered and covered, as I have tried to cover it, by saying that he will take the decision in the public interest rather than by binding him only to give a decision in favour of the licence holder in the particular


circumstances set down in my hon. Friends' Amendment. I hope that they will not think it wrong for me to have met their argument perhaps in advance. I hope the Committee will feel that this new Clause meets the case put by my right hon. and learned Friend, and meets it in an adequate way.

Mr. Temple: I should very much like to welcome this Clause. It represents, in my view, a large step forward. Having spoken both on Second Reading and in Committee on this very vital matter of the common law rights, I feel that my right hon. Friend has gone a very long way to meet the points which were put to him from both sides of the Committee, and, indeed, from both sides of the House, on this matter.
I am convinced that my right hon. Friend has been absolutely right in deciding that the determination of minimum acceptable flow shall be the moment at which the fishery interests will, in fact, have their common law rights taken away from them, for by that time the rivers will be known to be going to be controlled properly by the river authority. I would submit that this Clause has been put down at a very late stage because this matter has been under discussion for a very long time during the passage of the Bill. It was for that reason that I asked my right hon. Friend the question about estuarial netsmen, because, being President of the National Council of Salmon Netsmen of England and Wales, I am afraid that it has not been possible for me in the time available to discuss this matter with the netsmen's interests. I hope that whoever is to reply will be able to clear up this point.

Sir K. Joseph: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, the answer to his question, I am advised, is "Yes".

Mr. Temple: I am much' obliged to my right hon. Friend. That is indeed a great relief. Frankly, I would have thought, in all the circumstances and having regard to the great complications of this new Clause, that it might have been wiser had we retained the common law rights. As the Committee will know, common law rights are running concurrently with the pollution legislation and are working very smoothly in that connection.
I recognise that river boards, or, rather, certain members of river boards, are concerned about this Clause, but I think that in fairness to all concerned it would be right for us to recognise that river authorities can get rid of any possible liability under the Clause by the determination of minimum acceptable flow in any particular stretch of river. Having said that, I should like to give a general welcome to the Clause.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was good enough to inform the Committee that he is the President of the National Council of Salmon Netsmen of England and Wales. Having taken part in the deliberations on the Bill for a considerable time, it is my considered opinion that the hon. Member has netted a salmon of considerable size in the new Clause. I am rather dubious about whether the Committee should agree to pass it, at any rate without receiving a satisfactory explanation of what will be the future of the water industry, which is vitally affected by the Bill.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester made a pertinent point when he said that the whole matter depends on what are called the minimum acceptable flows being determined. I was under the impression that it will take years before they are determined, not only for the main salmon rivers but the many tributaries.
The powers contained in the new Clause for fishing interests are great and they may be exercised not just within a year or two but many years hence if a minimum acceptable flow has not been determined. I do not think that that will be disputed. The water industry, particularly the British Waterworks Association, believes that a threat to statutory water undertakings may be contained within the new Clause. The new Clause has been tabled late in the day and, while we do not complain about that, we have not been given much time in which to consider its many complexities. I am not referring to a threat that anyone is likely to use. However, the threat exists and should it be used it could have serious repercussions on water consumers, local authorities and so on. It might be used, for example, many years


hence when we have a new Minister and a new Government.
The Minister can, on an application, either revoke a licence or, if he decides that the application is invalid, rule that it should not be revoked. The right hon. Gentleman told us all about the question of compensation which arises directly out of his proposals in the new Clause. Many people think that without the new Clause the powers are adequate for the purposes the Minister has in mind. We take exception to the possibility that the licence right of a statutory water undertaking may be affected. On the advice I have been able to obtain in the short time since the new Clause was introduced I have gained the impression that, at some future date, should a fishing interest exert its rights under the new Clause, a statutory water undertaking could conceivably find itself in a difficult position. It may not be only a question of paying compensation but of losing its licence.

Sir K. Joseph: I agree that the new Clause has been introduced rather late, but the hon. Member may have overlooked the provision in subsection (1) of it, which shows that it does not apply to licences of right.

Mr. Howell: But does it not apply to future licences that are granted to statutory water undertakings? It is for this reason that I have referred to the threat to statutory water undertakings. I am not saying that it will happen, just that such undertakings could find themselves in a difficult position. We must remember that they undertake not merely the provision of water for domestic consumers but also the supply of water for industrial needs, which are increasing constantly. Thus, if a statutory water undertaking had a right which was threatened as a result of a fishing interest using its rights under the Clause, that could be a serious matter for the undertaking and just as serious for the water consumers in the area.
One would have thought that for the purposes of the Bill it would have been satisfactory to have had merely a provision relating to compensation so that any fishing interests finding themselves injured could be properly compensated. This way the threat of the removal of licences would have bean removed. The Clause confers a privilege on fishing

interests which is not conferred on any other interested body. It gives fishing interests considerable advantages.
5.45 p.m.
I regard the Amendment to the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Chester, to which the Minister referred, as being even more dangerous than the new Clause. I appreciate that hon. Members opposite like to do a spot of fishing. They are in need of recreation and leisure and I do not object to them getting it. However, as a consumer and not a fisherman I am saying that if one of the fishing interests in which the hon. Member for the City of Chester is interested invoked the new Clause and, in consequence, the licence of a statutory water undertaking was revoked, he would then be entitled, as a consumer, to demand to know what the Minister was doing, his water supplies and those of industry and others having been jeopardised purely as a result of the actions of fishing interests.
The Minister should comment on these important points before we agree to pass the new Clause. If we do not get adequate safeguards we would be justified to vote against it in view of the tremendous long-term threat which could face the water industry. In this connection, there are three points to which the Minister should address himself before asking the Committee to accept his new Clause.
First, is it a fact that the Minister will not revokes any licence issued to a statutory water undertaker on an application made by the owner of fishing rights?
Secondly, is it the case that the river authorities will not be saddled with the payment of compensation to owners of fishing rights where they have properly and carefully exercised their functions in respect of the issuing of licences? The hon. Member for the City of Chester told the Committee that certain legal authorities were concerned about the compensation that might have to be paid. When a river authority has given careful consideration to statutory water considerations on a subsequent date, it should not be placed in financial jeopardy.
Thirdly, in practice will a time limit be placed on the owners of fishing rights


in making application to the Minister in respect of their interests? I do not believe that any hon. Member, whatever interests he may have, will regard it as fair that this threat, which is inherent in the Clause, should be capable of being used in the dim and distant future. For this reason, a time limit should be written in to say when it can be invoked so that statutory water undertakings may know where they stand and when that limit expires. The industry needs to be assured on these points and I hope that the Minister will do just that before asking us to approve the new Clause.

Mr. Norman Cole: I thank my right hon. Friend for wishing to include the new Clause in the Bill. Without going into the details of my right hon. Friend's proposal, and speaking on behalf of one fishing club which has written to me in another connection concerning the Bill—and to which I referred in correspondence with my right hon. Friend—I am able to say that this club, with 2,500 members, will be more than grateful to think that the Bill contains this protection, not only regarding the present position but in respect of compensation should that become necessary.
As for the complications about the existing common law rights, I always think that where it is possible—as, apparently, it is here—to codify them into a Statute may well save trouble in the future even if, possibly, giving less work to the courts. I do not regret that this is being laid down in black and white, and I again thank my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). That is a very rare thing for me to do because, although I have worked for many years in Birmingham, I am a countryman and a keen angler. I see serious difficulties in this new Clause. My hon. Friend will remember that some 15 years ago the temperature of the water in a certain pool on the River Wye just below Hereford rose to 72 deg. and streams of motorists went to see the hundreds of dead salmon in it. There is in this new Clause the possibilities of conflict between those who want to abstract water from one water course to another, those who want

to abstract it for human and industrial consumption, and those anxious to preserve fishing interests. I want to preserve our fishing rivers. Angling is an excellent leisure-time pursuit. One does not interfere with anyone else. It is a solitary occupation, unlike football—

Mr. Denis Howell: Has my hon. Friend ever seen a fishing competition?

Mr. Bence: Yes, and I have seen one angler help another to catch the fish that won him the competition-Living in Scotland, I can indulge in this sport.
If this Clause is accepted, there is the possibility that in time of drought those having fishing rights to preserve will demand a flow of water while the statutory authority has to provide water for human and other consumption when the drought conditions themselves may lead to an extra demand on the supply. In such circumstances, someone has to be sacrificed, and if Birmingham had to be supplied in order to keep the factories going, and to enable the Birmingham people—who work very hard, produce much wealth for the country and get very dirty in the process—to wash both their clothes and themselves frequently, then, keen angler though I am, I would have to sacrifice the anglers' interests.
There is nothing worse than to see hundreds of dead salmon in a pool such as I have described, but if care of fishing interests means frustrating the country's economic functions and the activities of our factories, the sacrifice must be made. This new Clause contains the danger that, in such a situation, there might be serious litigation, and frustration not only of those who own the fishing rights but of the statutory authority whose job it is to abstract the water.
I hope that my interpretation of the new Clause is wrong, that the Minister will assure me that such a conflict would not be likely to arise, and that, even if it did, the Clause is so drawn as to be in favour of sacrificing fishing interests rather than the interests of industry and of those living in the conurbations.

Sir Lionel Heald: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I should like your guidance. I have an Amendment


on the Notice Paper, and it has already been mentioned. I feel that it would be more appropriate for me to defer my remarks on it until I have spoken to the new Clause—if I have the honour to catch your eye—but perhaps it would not be appropriate for me to address the Committee twice.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the arrangement was that the Amendment and the Clause should be discussed together.

Sir L. Heald: In that case, perhaps I might reserve my right to move the Amendment but to speak on the Clause as well—or what shall I do?

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the Amendment has not been selected, although it has been allowed for discussion.

Sir L. Heald: Then I am afraid that I was under a misapprehension, because from the list you kindly provided for us I thought the Amendment appeared as having been selected.

The Deputy-Chairman: Provisionally selected.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I shall be most interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about this matter. I am sure that he is well apprised of it, and has made up his mind as to his answer. I see the conflict in this way. I recognise that the statutory water undertakers, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has spoken, have a case, but I do not think it is an absolutely cast iron one. They are expressing art anxiety with an "if". It is a conditional anxiety—

Mr. Denis Howell: A provisional anxiety.

Dr. Stross: I should have thought it was conditional on the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary. If the hon. Gentleman says that there is no need for any one to fear, because the Minister will have this ultimately under his jurisdiction, as he would have under the Clause, the whole problem for the water undertakers is whether they think that the provision of water for domestic and industrial use will be important enough in the eyes of any future Minister to ensure that justice will be done.
We might get as Minister someone as passionately addicted to fishing as is the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). He might be even more passionately addicted to it—have almost a monomania about fishing. I can then imagine such a conflict, such a tension in the Minister that the poor man would become schizophrenic and, of course, collapse, because he would not know which way to choose.
Subject to what the Parliamentary Secretary says, I am tempted to say that the millions of people who get very great pleasure and relaxation from fishing—whether their interest be in coarse fish, or trout, or salmon or salmon trout—must be taken into consideration, But there is more to it than that. If too much water is taken from a stream and the balance of life init is upset, we must not think only of fishing and pleasure but remember that the natural conditions of the country side could be seriously damaged.
That aspect affects me very much. I think that I would rather do without a bath or two than spoil the beauty and harmony of the countryside, and most hon. Members who fish will probably agree with me—

Mr. Denis Howell: I always thought my hon. Friend was the great Victorian.

Dr. Stross: Oh, no—eighteenth century, and not one year beyond. I am amazed at my hon. Friend.

Mr. Howell: I think that it was Queen Victoria who said that the English had the habit of bathing far too often.

Dr. Stross: In those days, the English gentleman bathed once a year, and washed his hands and face once a day. My hon. Friend will remember that there were only two lavatories and two bathrooms in the whole Palace.

Mr. Howell: I am happy to say that I do not remember those days.

Dr. Stross: I am sure that we shall get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary but, if he does not reassure us, we shall have some very long speeches.

6.0 p.m.

Sir L. Heald: I am most grateful to you, Sir Robert, for allowing me to intervene in this discussion, because it has


been very pleasing to find that at least one or two hon. Members opposite have supported the fishermen. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) may be more interested in other forms of amusement, such as watching people kicking a ball about, but I am glad that others appreciate the quiet method of spending one's time which has appealed to so many hon. Members for many years past.
This discussion is very important. It illustrates the very matter in which I am particularly interested. A number of us are most grateful to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the great care and consideration with which they have attended to this difficult problem of common law rights. It should be appreciated that an unreasonable line has not been taken by the fishery interests. We are not apologetic for the deep interest we have in this subject. A number of organisations will be familiar to hon. Members who take a great part in the consideration of Bills and regulations on matters of this kind, such as the National Federation of Anglers, the Anglers' Co-operative Association, the Salmon and Trout Association and others. They have been very concerned about the abolition of common law rights before the minimum flow is established.
I have always taken the view that once the minimum flow is established it is much better to have the subject dealt with by a licensing system which establishes rights rather than leaving people to the uncertainty of common law actions which introduce complications, but there is no doubt that there was this gap and that in that gap serious damage might be done. As a result of discussions which took place—and I much regret that I was not present at the Committee—this new Clause was tabled. It may be summarised as giving the owner of fishing rights in exchange for common law rights and the right of injunction against an unlawful abstractor, the right to apply to the Minister to have the damaging licence revoked or varied and damages applied for if the applicant can be proved to have suffered.
The principle behind the Clause is that after one year's experience the owner of fishing rights, if he can prove that damage

has been caused by a licence other than a licence of right, may apply to the Minister to have the matter put right. When the Minister has heard the case, even if he decides that the fishery has been damaged, he has power under the Clause to decide that the licence shall not be revoked or varied but that instead compensation shall be paid.
The substance of this proposal was made known to those who were interested and they are most grateful for having had the opportunity of considering its broad terms. They were concerned that no reason was given for the Minister to act upon in deciding not to exercise this right of revocation or variation even in a case where it was shown that damage, and it might be disastrous damage, has been done. This, therefore, was discussed and the suggestion was made that it should be dealt with by saying in appropriate language that the Minister should refrain from exercising his right of variation or revocation only in view of "the importance of the abstraction" concerned.
Actually that expression has been used by more than one speaker in this debate. It was used by my right hon. Friend, but it does not occur in the Clause as tabled. The result is that, on the face of it, the Minister is entitled to refuse to vary or revoke the licence even in a case where immense damage has been done, and the Minister is in no way bound to consider the question whether it is an important or an unimportant matter. It may be said that, of course, he would always consider it, but here we have at least one suggestion from the hon. Member for Small Heath, who prefers football to other things by way of recreation. He suggests that it would be desirable that the Minister should never do anything except afford compensation, and under the Clause the right hon. Gentleman could do that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) suggested the possibility that the Ministerial office might be held by someone who was a passionate fisherman. It might also be held by someone who hated fishing. The position then would be the other way round.
I was immensely impressed by what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said. I entirely agree with him. We must not think


only of ourselves in these matters because we happen to be keen fishermen. We may find ourselves in a tremendous conflict. I ask the hon. Member for Small Heath, to look at the matter, as I am trying to do, from an entirely impartial point of view. Let us suppose that we approach the matter on that basis and that the Minister would refuse to vary or revoke a licence only in a case where substantial damage is shown to be done and where the abstraction of water in pursuance of the licence in question was shown to be of great importance—I use a neutral term—from the national point of view and the needs of the person to whom the licence was granted could not be met by any other means.
In the case which the Hon. Member quoted, there would be no difficulty. The case would be met, but at the same time a safeguard would be provided against the kind of damage which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, and other hon. Members have in mind. This is why one felt that something should be put into the Clause to guide the Minister. We know that where legal matters are concerned it is no use relying on things which are said in this House. In fact, one is not allowed to refer to them in the courts. On the other hand, when it is a matter of Ministerial policy it is a different thing and it might well be that if a Minister made a statement in the House on how the policy would be intended to be applied that would be a considerable measure of safeguard. But in obedience to your Ruling, Sir Robert, I cannot say anything more about my Amendment—

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not misunderstood me. He can discuss his Amendment on the new Clause, but the Amendment has not been selected to be put to the Committee. Have I made that clear?

Sir L. Heald: I am very grateful to you, Sir Robert. In that case I will try to explain my point without going into the matter at any length. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the words that I used just now are substantially the words of the Amendment and they were put in for the purpose of ensuring that the Minister would make it clear at least that he intended to act in that way.
Without putting words of that kind into the Bill, it may be that we could receive an assurance from the Minister. I think that all hon. Members, who would have conflicting views on this matter, would like an assurance as to how the Minister would regard his powers in this respect. I might show a fear that (he Minister would act in one way, and the hon. Member for Small Heath might be apprehensive that the Minister would act in another way. But there must be some decision made by the Minister when these difficult cases arise, and I should have thought that if one referred to the national interest it could not exclude any really deserving cases.
I think also it is very important to have in mind the second part of the wording to which I referred, that is to say, that the requirements
cannot reasonably be met by other means…
It is very easy to say, "Here is this very important matter of the water supply; it overrides everything else." We have heard in this debate some very good reasons why that would not be so, and if, in a proper case, the matter could be met by some kind of impounding works or similar precautions or arrangements, surely it is much better that that should be done than that a river should be ruined from the fishing point of view.
This is not a matter which is likely to happen frequently. It is, however, just the kind of case that might arise through some unfortunate mistake—perhaps no one's fault but through some unforeseen circumstances arising. Therefore, I hope that we may have from the Minister some clear statement on how he would intend to exercise his power. It is a very definite and wide power that is being given to override the rights of people who are perfectly entitled to insist upon them.
I must say that I was rather surprised when the hon. Member for Small Heath referred to the common law rights as a privilege. A common law right is more than a privilege; it is something of very great importance indeed. The fact that someone insists upon those rights being properly compensated for before he gives them up is not asking for a privilege. I hope that will be made quite clear.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: The speech that we have just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)—I do not mean this in a pompous way—should receive careful attention. I am not a lawyer, but I wish to look once more at the language and its meaning. Let us get the nub of the matter. The Minister has protected himself in subsection (4), which says:
On an application under this section"—
that is, an application for compensation—the Minister shall determine the grounds of the application, and he must also be satisfied that the damage is not due to an
exceptional shortage of rain, or to an accident or other unforeseen act or event not caused by, and outside the control of, the river authority.
The Minister has to protect himself. Coming to the proposed Amendment to this Clause, the words of which we are not allowed to discuss in full but which can be mentioned en passant, I take it that the phrase, "in the national interest" is an added protection in circumstances which it would be easy for any of us to imagine.
I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). Being interested in the rights of fishermen, I wish to thank the Minister far listening to the plea that was made on behalf of the numerous fishing interests in Britain. Most of the Bill is agreed, and I suppose we shall have to go along with the Bill, emperically and pragmatically improving it from time to time.
There is one point which requires an answer, and that is the question which was asked by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), whether this provision applies to net fishermen. Subsection (11) of this proposed Clause says:
…'fishing rights', in relation to an inland water, means any right to fish in that water…
I presume that the hon. Member for Leek has the right to fish in the water irrespective of whether he is a riparian owner or not. Could that hon. Member then apply for a certain amount of compensation? I should like this point cleared up.
I conclude by praising the Minister and expressing appreciation of the work that

has been done on both sides of the Committee on behalf of the fishery interests and the recognition of their rights. This is a marvellous sport which is so necessary in these days of noise.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I should like to begin by declaring an interest. I am the owner of fishery rights and that may, perhaps, qualify me to speak the better about this new Clause and the Amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and myself.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said that I and my fellows had been given a privilege, but I think that he will appreciate that, taking the Bill as a whole, although it is true that the Clause may give something to the owners of fisheries, the Bill takes away from them a very much larger right, namely, the right to sue at common law. Therefore, the net result is a diminution in the tights of the owners of fisheries. I am not complaining; I am merely pointing out that fact.
I should like to join in thanking the Government for putting down this Clause. I offer my thanks, not as an owner but as a fisherman and as one of the many thousands of people who enjoy fishing in our streams. Without this Clause there is a real danger that the removal of common law rights before the machinery of the Bill as a whole is working properly could lead to excessive abstraction of water and serious permanent damage to some of our fisheries. I do not say that that would happen in every case; it would not, but it could happen in certain cases and I think that everybody will agree that that would be wrong and ought to be prevented if possible.
The trouble is that, in cases where a licence is given, if there is no kind of sanction remaining with the owner of fisheries, large capital expenditure can be incurred and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, then to put the matter right. It is important, therefore, to retain some sanction in the Bill to the general effect of the new Clause.
I say at once that I do not regard the machinery of the common law as perfect. Far from it. It is extremely cumbrous and, as one who has occasionally had to look at it with a view to using it, I confess that it is not what I should devise


if I were starting to write a Bill with a clean slate. But the point about common law rights is that they have been a deterrent against those who might abuse a river, if that is an expression which can be readily understood. They have been a real deterrent, and, to that extent, they have preserved amenities which we want to preserve.
The Clause provides an alternative deterrent. For this reason, I welcome it. I go so far as to say that I am not altogether unhappy even if the Clause is a little clumsy and vague because, for the general purpose I have in mind, it may be a little more effective than if it were too precise.

Mr. Harold Davies: May I draw on the hon. Gentleman's expert knowledge? Am I right in assuming that, if there is vagueness and if one were dissatisfied, it is provided that an appeal can be made to the Lands Tribunal?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No. I think that the Lands Tribunal comes in only on the question of valuation. I am merely saying that a certain amount of vagueness in this connection is not altogether a bad thing. On the other hand, I am not altogether satisfied about the drafting of subsection (8), and it is to this that my right hon. and learned Friend and I have directed our Amendment.
The essential words of the subsection are:
Where…the Minister determines that the grounds of the application…have been established…but that the licence shall not be revoked or varied…the owner of the fishing rights shall be entitled to compensation from the river authority"—
unless—this is the point of the intervening words—the river authority is prepared to purchase the rights.
Those are rather unusual words, because they do not oblige the Minister to use any discretion at all. I do not remember ever seeing in a Statute a simple and flat arbitrary power in a case of this kind. I quite appreciate that, if one did put in other words, they would not have a very great legal effect because, if the Minister says that he has used his discretion, no court will in the ordinary way say that he has not done so. Therefore, the person affected would be in no position of much greater advantage. Nevertheless, the words are extraordinarily arbitrary.
Apart altogether from this, there is no indication at all about the considerations which the Minister should have in mind. I have already explained that I do not much mind this and that I do not think that, even if one did put them in, they would give anyone very much greater legal rights. None the less, I should very much like to know what my right hon. Friend has in mind, because we are here in the field of administration, not litigation, and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance, when passing words of this kind, to know what policy the Government intend to pursue.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give a clear indication of the Government's intention. I take it that they do not intend to leave this completely at large but that some principles will be adopted for deciding as between the two sets of interests concerned. I am quite willing to leave it in his hands, but only after an indication has been given that there will be principles applied and that those principles will be broadly acceptable to those who are interested in fishing and the other amenities.

Mr. Denis Howell: I intervene for only a few moments because I feel that I have been grossly misrepresented. There was no reason whatever why the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) should have stayed awake during my speech, but I can only conclude from what he said that he did, in fact, go to sleep. It is quite wrong to assume that there is a great conflict between fishermen and those who support football, or that there is a great conflict between the water industry, on behalf of which I have attempted to speak, and fishermen. I should like to put the matter right.
The water industry has tremendous obligations to everyone. We are all consumers of water. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said, this obligation must always be paramount. We hope that, as a result of the reorganisation of the industry which we now have in hand, there will be no conflict in the future, but, if there were ever a conflict, all people of responsible judgment—I include the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself—would say that the water industry and the interests of the consumer must have prior consideration.
I am happy to say that I do a little fishing from time to time and that I can be counted among the happy band. Since I came to the House of Commons, I have had little time for fishing, except in a political sense, but I—

Dr. Stross: Does my hon. Friend ever catch anything?

Mr. Howell: From time to time, though, in my experience, my catches, both political and natural, are usually of such a size that they have to go back.
I should tell the fishing lobby here assembled that I am tempted to say something more on this subject. If we are ever to debate it, I should like to say something about the interests of fishermen who are prevented from fishing in so many stretches of our rivers by the vested interests ranged opposite. But this, perhaps, would be out of order, and it certainly would destroy the harmony which we all seek on the Bill. I shall resist the temptation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the guarantees I asked for on the three specific points I raised.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I press my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give us full guidance on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) in regard to subsection (8), paragraphs (a) and (b), and the grounds on which the Minister will base his decision to let an abstraction go on even below the acceptable minimum flow. I want to know whether he will take into account the possibility that his decision may mean that the abstraction, if allowed to go on, will result in the complete loss of migratory fish in a river basin.
If we are to accept that the Minister will not take into account this loss in deciding whether to allow the abstraction to go on, will he be a little more explicit about compensation and how he proposes that it should be paid? Will compensation be on the basis of so much per million gallons extracted below the accepted minimum flow, or will it be so much on the capital value of the fish caught during the last five years? If there is not some such basis, people will not be able to assess what their right to compensation will be.
I do not wish to appear ungrateful. I know that the Anglers' Co-operative Association feels that this Clause is, perhaps, not good enough, but it is better than nothing. It is certainly most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and all those who have done so much for fishing interests in the Bill. However, like most anglers, they have not landed quite as big a fish as they hoped they would.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Hughes: I am situated in midstream between the anglers and the footballers. We had a most detailed discussion on this matter in Committee and therefore I do not propose to rehearse the arguments which were there put forward. However, many of us had considerable doubts about the position of the owners of riparian rights. I was impressed by the argument which the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) adduced during his speech on Second Reading. Having thought more about the matter and having gone into it in more detail, I felt it incumbent on me to probe it rather deeper in Committee. As a result of the right hon. and learned Member's speech on Second Reading and of our long debates in Committee, the Minister has brought forward this new Clause.
I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), but I have been told what he said. I think that he raised three important questions to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give a very careful reply. On the whole, I welcome the new Clause because if the common law rights of riparian owners are being taken from them something must be given in return. A common law right protects all of us. It is quite proper that the Minister should have introduced these words.
The wording of subsection (8) is rather vague. However it may not be necessary to introduce further words in another place. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a full and clear explanation now, I should be satisfied with these words. If the Minister clarifies the position beyond doubt, I am prepared to support the new Clause.

Mr. Corfield: Perhaps I can take the Committee's mind back to the original concept of the Bill. On the one hand, it is an endeavour to produce a licensing system which creates, in effect, a guarantee about the supply of water and, on the other hand, running through the Bill has been the theme of trying to protect existing rights. The gap which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) rightly pointed out on Second Reading has been the problem of the riparian fishing rights before the minimum acceptable flow is assessed or reached, which is, in a sense, a substitution for the common law rights, and one which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) accepted in some way as perhaps even an improvement on the common law right.
One difficulty which arises, and which has arisen as we have gone into the matter further, is that the streams which are mostly used for abstraction and whose minimum acceptable flows will therefore be fixed as a matter of priority—and in a much shorter time than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) anticipates, probably four to five years—are not always the most important streams for fishermen. That underlines the necessity for the new Clause.
An appeal under the new Clause can arise only when something has gone wrong, because, even if a minimum acceptable flow has not been fixed for a stream, in granting a licence the river authority is bound to take into account the considerations which it has to take into account when considering the minimum acceptable flow. Therefore, if the use of the rights granted under a licence results in damage to the fishermen which we anticipate and are guarding against, it means, more or less automatically, that something has gone wrong in the licensing system. If that is the case, and, prima jade, it will be the case, it does not seem improper that the compensation should fall on the licensing authority—to wit, the river authority.
With regard to the conflict, if there should be a conflict between the licensee, whether a statutory undertaker or anybody else, and the fishing interests, as I have said, the thread running through the

Bill has been to protect the existing rights. These fishing rights are existing rights. In the mind of the Minister the onus will be on proving that the licensee is of sufficient importance that he should override the fishing rights and also that this is the only way in which that licensee can reasonably get the water.
I hope that that satisfies my right hon. and hon. Friends about the way in which we visualise these decisions being made. We regard them as something which will happen very rarely and only when something has gone wrong. That underlines that the onus is to show that the licensee or abstractor who causes damage to the fishing interests is of such importance that his interest must win and, in addition, that he has no reasonable alternative method of obtaining the water.
Clearly, in dealing with a public undertaking of this nature, there is a public interest and no one can say it is not an important interest; but it would be rash to say that in all cases a public water undertaking will be considered to have prior claim, because it must depend on whether there are alternative means to provide the water requirements of the reservoir or village in question. Statutory abstractions are not all of the size of that in Birmingham. There are minor ones which can be switched to a different stream.
We anticipate that the minimum acceptable flow will be fixed, at any rate in the larger rivers, within five or six years, and, we think, earlier. Looking to the long-term future, we are concerned under this Clause mainly with the smaller streams. I do not think it right that we should put a time limit on the operation of this Clause because its whole object is to operate until there is a substitute for the old common law rights, which will not happen until the minimum acceptable flow has been fixed.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) asked what interests were involved. It is, I think, clear from subsection (11) that the nets-men—at any rate those with whom I am familiar in my constituency—would clearly come into this category. In some cases their rights go back 400, 500 or 600 years. There is no doubt that that is a legal right within the Clause. I do not know of any other types of netsmen who do not have a legal right of that sort,


but if there are any perhaps ray hon. Friend would let me know. As I read the Clause and understand the rights which accrue to fishing interests, I have no doubt that they are covered.
The horn. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said that somebody must be sacrificed. This does not necessarily follow. The final decision may well be that the fishing rights are preserved with or without compensation, depending upon the extent to which they have been damaged up to that time, and that the licensee is told that he can have a licence for abstraction from another source, perhaps an underground source or another stream, which will not affect the river. It does not follow that there will always be such a rigid distinction that somebody is damaged.
I hope that the Committee will accept the Clause. It is intended as a long-stop for when a mistake has been made. In many of the important abstractions in cases of overriding national importance, it may be that the river authority will refuse a licence application in the first place and the matter will be decided by my right hon. Friend on appeal, probably with any damage to the fishing interests in mind at that stage. In that case, the onus is probably switched the other way and there would be an appeal under the Clause. Normally, I expect that it would be brought into use when a mistake had been made by the river authority.
In that event, it would depend upon those two factors when the decision has to be made, namely, the importance of the abstractor and whether there was a reasonable chance of his getting his water elsewhere.

Mr. C Hughes: The time limit factor greatly concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) and is a matter which I have had in mind for many weeks. There is no satisfactory definition. The Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have said throughout these discussions that the minimum acceptable flow in relation to main rivers will be decided in four, five or six years' time. There will then be the protection of the minimum acceptable flow and the Clause will cease to operate concerning those rivers. The Joint Parliamentary

Secretary has now made the point that in the case of smaller rivers, it may take many years to determine the minimum acceptable flow and in some cases, we have been told, it may never be decided.
I wonder whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can help the Committee. It is incumbent upon the Government to give us rather more precise information. I accept all the arguments about common law rights, but we also have a duty to the statutory undertakers. I understood the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that not all water undertakings were as large as Birmingham. I understand that for many small villages the reservoirs are drawn from smaller rivers.
I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether the Government have considered a more precise definition of the size of river in relation to which he expects that minimum acceptable flow will have been decided in four or five years' time. Would they be the rivers, for example, which are included in the present schedule of the river boards? Those boards are responsible for precisely denned stretches of water, outside which they are not responsible. Are those the rivers, or is there another definition?
Before the Committee leaves the Clause, I should be glad to have from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a rather more satisfactory definition of what he means by the larger rivers which will have been dealt with in four or five years' time and the smaller rivers which will not be dealt with for many years or may not be dealt with even at all.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I hope that I can help the hon. Member. Perhaps we have been using language badly in talking about large and small rivers. The criterion will be the demand on the river in relation to the supply. In the case of a relatively small river which has a growing demand on it, it will become increasingly important to move to the minimum acceptable flow procedure, because by definition there will be a number of applications for licences and unless a minimum acceptable flow is prescribed, the river authority when dealing with a large number of licences will have no measuring stick by which


to decide whether they should be granted.
The rivers for which we expect minimum acceptable flows to be determined in the reasonably near future are the main rivers under existing river board legislation. Beyond that, I cannot go further than say that it will be the rivers on which there is a substantial demand that the river authorities will select to bring forward in their programme for the fixing of minimum acceptable flow.
No doubt, there are many rivers for which one cannot foresee a time when it will be necessary to have a minimum acceptable flow, but as time goes on the conditions may alter, simply, perhaps, by people being forced to use more expensive supplies of water or by a change in the location of industry or the type of industry in an area. I cannot sensibly go further than that.
I am sure that the hon. Member and the Committee will appreciate that our concern is to set up river authorities to study the matter from their local knowledge which will be much more detailed than we can have and to make their programmes on the basis of that knowledge and of the hydrological surveys which they are impelled to undertake under the Bill and which are one of the main objects of the Bill.

Mr. Bence: When we began discussion of the Clause, I was not particularly dissatisfied with it, but after the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's explanation I am thoroughly dissatisfied with it because of the time factor. We are to have a minimum flow level for the major rivers and I presume that it will be a much longer period before a minimum flow is fixed for the smaller rivers.
When an extractor gets a licence to draw water from a main river and starts to do so, he may not reduce the flow of that river very much, but somewhere in the watershed or the adjoining river system he may create conditions in which another river course has no water in it. The flow might disappear because an extractor takes water from the main river. As no minimum flow is specified, I presume that the extractor would be liable to prosecution under common law, because his extraction will have created a dead river or a watercourse with only a trickle in it.

Mr. Corfield: Mr. Corfield indicated dissent.

Mr. Bence: I may be wrong, but the explanation which I have heard thus far does not clear up the matter.
When a minimum flow is fixed for the River Wye, which I know well, or the Severn, I imagine that there would be a survey by the Water Resources Board of the whole river system flowing into the Severn or its tributaries, which include the Teme, which I know well, and many others. I should think that the water flow of these streams would be considered, because the extraction from the main river could destroy a tributary although not affect, say, the River Wharf, another tributary of the Severn, a sluggish stream with a gentle flow. The main river falls a good deal without affecting the Wharf, although a fall in the Severn would affect the Teme drastically. This is a watercourse which could be drained almost right out.
Any angler or countryman knows that one sight which is worse than a pit bing is a river bud which is almost dry. To me, a river is a beautiful phenomenon of nature and it is an awful sight to see a river bed of stones with only a little trickle of water in the centre. One can imagine all the life which has disappeared from such a watercourse.
To me, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's explanation is unsatisfactory. The time factor for setting the minimum acceptable flow is quite unsatisfactory from the viewpoint of both the extractor, who has the licence to extract the water, and of the riparian owner, not necessarily on the main stream, but on the smaller streams, who seems to be receiving no consideration. I hope that my interpretation is wrong, because I am a supporter of the Bill, but I think it is the duty of the Committee to consider the best interests of those who partake in angling and of the consumers in our huge conurbations.
I was in a country where the rain falls for two months in a year, and yet that country is never short of water. Yet here, probably the wettest part of Europe, we have two weeks' sunshine and are always short of water; although we have a lot of rain we always seem in need of water conservation.
I think that the explanation the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given us this


evening has confused the issue more and more and made it less acceptable, particularly because of the time factor, and I hope that we shall have a better explanation than this before we let the new Clause go.

Mr. Corfield: It makes it a little bit difficult if I have to take the hon. Member back to the discussions we had, much more appropriately, on Clause 19, which we discussed at great length in Standing Committee. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, what he has been saying about abstractions from those small streams has nothing, except very remotely, to do with this new Clause.
The whole basis of the problem which he referred to is that the abstractor, from whatever size of stream, will have to have a licence from the river authority; and the river authority, when considering an application for a licence, if a minimum acceptable flow has not been determined, will have to take into account the effect of abstraction on fishing interests and other matters listed in Clause 19, in relation to fixing the minimum acceptable flow. So the fisherman in the small river is protected by the licensing system, but because the licence gives to the abstractor the right to abstract free from action at common law we have introduced this new Clause to give the fisherman some right in lieu of those common law rights he has now lost.
The licensee is protected. We have introduced the new Clause to give the fisherman those rights if he is in fact damaged; but I would suggest that he is going to be much less likely to be damaged after the passing of the Bill than he was before because on the passing of the Bill, if somebody puts in an application and there is a reduction in the flow of the water, as the hon. Gentleman anticipates, there would perhaps be a common law right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said, these applications would not always be a very precise instrument, but here an abstractor will have a right to apply for a licence to be protected and this Clause will protect fishing interests against any possible damage. The fisherman will have as a first defence the fact that the licensing authority, namely, the river authority, will have had to

consider the licence against the background of the likelihood of this happening, and issues under this Clause can arise only if, basically, the river authority made a mistake in giving the licence.

Mr. Denis Howell: Confusion is becoming worse confounded every moment. It is quite true, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that we had in Standing Committee a discussion on Clause 19, but it is also true that we did not then have in front of us this new Clause. This is a new situation. We should have had a lot more to say about Clause 19 at that time if we had had this new Clause as well. Therefore, I do not think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should charge my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) as he did.
The water industry was not very happy with the answer we had. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has very fairly said, fishing interests are being looked after—quite properly: nobody objects to that. Considerations affecting fishing will be in the minds of the river authorities when they decide whether or not to give one of these licences.
As from the moment the licence is granted this is a threat which is held over their heads, since we are proposing to put into the Bill, first, compensation, secondly, and/or licence revocation. Having considered all this, having granted the application, it is beyond my comprehension why the question of revocation should come about. I understand the question of compensation, and I would be the first to say that the fishing interests should be contemplated. I agree, too, that the question is unlikely to arise except very remotely. In view, however, of the caveats entered by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the matter, why on earth is it necessary to put into this new Clause this phrase about revocation and allow it to be implemented for a long period of time?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary himself said, I remind him, a few weeks ago that the minimum acceptable flow of the main rivers of this country will be determined in five to six years. That carries the corollary that the minimum acceptable flow of the lesser rivers, the tributaries, will not be determined, will not start to be determined, for five or six years, till the question over the main


rivers has been got out of the way. That is how I see it, at least. Therefore the period between the granting of a licence and the determining of the minimum flow, in the smaller rivers particularly, is indefinite but certainly very long, and this is of concern to many undertakers.
I do not want to press the matter unduly for we want to make haste, but I would ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to think about this again. Why have this threat, this long-term threat, hanging over the water industry?
My final word to the hon. Gentleman is that while I shall let this matter drop now, dissatisfied as I am with his answer, I do so in the sure and certain knowledge, which he will doubtless appreciate, that hon. Members who are interested in the water industry, hon. Members now here and who will be here in the future, are very vigorous and vociferous people, and if these powers should be used in the way in which we apprehend they conceivably may be used Parliamentary opportunity will be found for a first-class row about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION BY OWNER OF FISHING RIGHTS FOR REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF LICENCE.)

(1) Where a licence under this Act, not being a licence of right, authorises abstraction from an inland water in respect of which no minimum acceptable flow has been determined under Part III of this Act, then, at any time after the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which the licence was granted but before such a minimum acceptable flow has been so determined, any person who is the owner of fishing rights in respect of that inland water may apply to the Minister for the revocation or variation of the licence.

(2) Any application under this section made by a person as owner of fishing rights in respect of an inland water shall be made on the grounds that, in his capacity as owner of those rights, he has sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the abstraction of water in pursuance of the licence in question, and either—

(a) he is not entitled to a protected right under this Act in respect of that inland water, or
(b) the loss or damage which he has sustained in his capacity as owner of those rights is not attributable to any such breach of statutory duty as is mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 49 of this Act or is in addition to any loss or damage attributable to any such breach.

(3) Where an application is made under this section, the applicant shall serve notice in the prescribed form on the river authority and on the holder of the licence, stating that each of them is entitled, at any time before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of service of the notice, to make representations in writing to the Minister with respect to the application; and the Minister, in determining the application, shall take into account any representations in writing received by him from the river authority or from the holder of the licence within that period.

(4) On an application under this section, the Minister shall not determine that the licence in question shall be revoked or varied unless—

(a) the grounds of the application, as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, are established to his satisfaction, and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that the extent of the loss or damage which the applicant has sustained, as mentioned in that subsection, is such as to justify the revocation or variation of the licence,
or if he is satisfied that the fact that the abstraction of water in pursuance of the licence caused that loss or damage was wholly or mainly attributable to exceptional shortage of rain, or to an accident or other unforeseen act or event not caused by, and outside the control of, the river authority; and, where the Minister determines that the licence shall be varied, the variation shall be limited to that which, in the opinion of the Minister, is requisite having regard to that loss or damage.

(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 44 of this Act shall apply in relation to any matter required to be determined by the Minister under the last preceding subsection as they apply in relation to matters required to be determined by him under that section, but with the modification that an applicant under this section (as well as the holder of the licence) shall have the like rights to request a hearing, and to be heard, as the holder of the licence has under subsection (2) of that section.

(6) Section 46 of this Act shall have effect in relation to the revocation or variation of a licence under this section as it has effect in relation to the revocation or variation of a licence under section 44 of this Act.

(7) Where a licence is revoked or varied on an application under this section, the applicant shall be entitled to compensation from the river authority in respect of the loss or damage which he has sustained as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section.

(8) Where, on an application under this section for the revocation or variation of a licence, the Minister determines that the grounds of the application (as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section) have been established to his satisfaction, but that the licence shall not be revoked or varied in pursuance of that application, he shall certify accordingly; and thereupon, unless within the period of six months from the date on which that certificate is granted either—

(a) notice to treat for the acquisition of the fishing rights of the applicant, or of an interest in land which includes those


rights, has been served by the river authority, or
(b) an offer has been made by the river authority to the owner of those rights to acquire those rights (or, where they subsist only as rights included in an interest in land, to acquire that interest) on terms that the price payable shall be equal to (and shall, in default of agreement, be determined in like manner as) the compensation which would be payable in respect thereof if the rights or interest were acquired compulsorily by the river authority,
the owner of the fishing rights shall be entitled to compensation from the river authority.

(9) The amount of the compensation payable under the last preceding subsection in respect of any fishing rights shall be the amount by which the value of those rights (or, where they subsist only as rights included in an interest in land, the value of that interest) is depreciated by the operation of section 31(1) of this Act in relation to the licence to which the application related.

(10) Any question of disputed compensation under subsection (7) or under subsections (8) and (9) of this section shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal; and in relation to the determination of any such compensation the provisions of sections 2 and 4 of the Land Compensation Act, 1961 shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications.

(11) In this section "fishing rights", in relation to an inland water, means any right (whether it is an exclusive right or a right in common with one or more other persons) to fish in that water, where the right in question either constitutes an interest in land or is included in an interest in land or is exercisable by virtue of an exclusive licence granted for valuable consideration; any reference to an owner of fishing rights is a reference to the person for the time being entitled to those rights; and any reference to a right included in an interest in land is a reference to a right which is exercisable only by virtue of, and as a right incidental to, the ownership of that interest.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal),considered.

New Clause.—(LICENCES OF RIGHT FOR NON-STATUTORY USERS.)

(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where an application under section 33 of this Act is made in a case falling within subsection (1,b) of that section; and in this section "the relevant period" means the period of five years ending with the second appointed day or the period beginning with the date on which the applicant or his predecessors began to abstract water from the source of supply in question and ending with the second appointed day, whichever is the shorter.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any quantity specified in the licence as a quantity of water authorised to be abstracted in pursuance of the licence during a period or periods so specified shall be determined by reference to the requirements of the applicant, as indicated by (and not, except by virtue of the next following subsection, to be taken to exceed) the quantities of water proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the river authority—

(a) to have been abstracted from the source of supply in question by the applicant or his predecessors from time to time during the relevant period, and
(b) to have been so abstracted for use on the land on which, and for the purposes for which, water abstracted in pursuance of the licence is authorised by the licence to be used:

Provided that paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not apply in the case of a licence granted to waiter undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking as water undertakers.

(3) In determining any quantity to be specified in the licence, the river authority shall have regard to such of the following masters as are proved to their reasonable satisfaction (in addition to the quantities of water proved to have been abstracted as mentioned in the last preceding subsection) that is to say—

(a) the seasons of the year during which the quantities of water abstracted during the relevant period, as mentioned in the last preceding subsection, were so abstracted;
(b) the extent to which the abstraction of water has during the relevant period been, or is intended to be, limited to special occasions when, by reason of accident or other emergency, there has been, or may be, a temporary deficiency of water from other sources of supply;
(c) the extent to which works, machinery or apparatus were reasonably provided by the applicant or his predecessors in anticipation of future requirements.

(4) Any provision made by the licence as to the quantity of water authorised to be abstracted shall be such as will not permit the abstraction of water in excess of the quantity shown to the reasonable satisfaction of the river authority to be capable of being abstracted by means of works, machinery or apparatus which were constructed or installed before the second appointed day, or were in the course of being constructed or installed on that day, not being works, machinery or apparatus provided for use only in the event of an accident or other emergency involving a total or partial failure of other works, machinery or apparatus.

(5) Where the purposes specified in the licence as the purposes for which water abstracted in pursuance of the licence is to be used consist of or include spray irrigation, then, unless it is proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the river authority either—

(a) that the applicant or his predecessors has before the passing of this Act abstracted water from the source of supply in question for the purpose of spray irrigation, or


(b) that before the passing of this Act the applicant or his predecessors began to construct a reservoir for the storage of water to be abstracted from that source of supply and used for the purpose of spray irrigation, and that reservoir was completed and brought into use for that purpose before the second appointed day,

subsection (2) of this section shall not apply, and subsection (5) or subsection (7) (as the case may require) of section 29 of this Act shall apply in relation to the application as if it were an application for a licence other than a licence of right, and as if, in those subsections, any reference to "the preceding provisions" were a reference to subsections (3) and (4) of this section.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
May I take it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we may consider, at the same time, the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend to leave out Clause 35?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If that will be for the covenience of the House, by all means.

Mr. Corfield: This new Clause and the Amendment follow upon undertakings given during proceedings on the Bill both in Standing Committee and in another place to review the provision for the terms of a licence of right. Some degree of apprehension was expressed, particularly by existing industrial abstractors, who may have been abstracting in such a way that there was perhaps a difficulty in proving the exact amount which they have been using over any period, about how this amount was to be written in as the quantity for which they were licensed.
The general tenor of the new Clause is to attach the terms of the licence of right much more closely to the evidence of previous extraction over the five-year period. I do not think that there is anything of great complication in the new Clause, but it follows the undertaking to make the quantity, or the calculation of the quantity, rather more precise.

Mr. Denis Howell: I thank the Minister for the consideration given to the water industry. As he rightly said, there was a considerable degree of apprehension upon the part of the water industry as to the effect of people establishing rights immediately, knowing that the Bill was coming into force and before it became law and was in operation. I am happy to say that the water industry particularly welcomes subsection (5) of this new

Clause and very much appreciates the manner in which the Minister has met its fears. I am, therefore, happy to support the new Clause.

Mr. John H. Osborn: May I, as one who raised on Second Reading, and in Committee, the position of the non-statutory users, say how grateful we are to the Minister for having put forward this new Clause?
One of the difficulties in Committee was the position of the industrial user of water as against the person who wishes to use water for pleasure purposes. Clause 35, undoubtedly, as it appeared in Committee, was unsatisfactory. At a particular stage of that Committee, late in the evening, one or two of us had comments to make but could not make them. This new Clause, as far as it goes, is acceptable to many non-statutory users. I endeavoured in Committee to table a new Clause but this was not called for obvious reasons.
One of the concerns of non-statutory users was that the river authority would, in effect, have too much power, and the words, in Clause 34,
…the provision made by the licence as to the quantity of water authorised to be abstracted shall be such as the river authority consider appropriate…
has caused a certain amount of concern.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, one of the difficulties is knowing how much water has been used and how much water will be used in the future. This redrafted Cause is much clearer and more acceptable to many users, particularly industrial users, such as a factory which has assumed that the use of water is part of the standing assets of its own company. I should like to support the new Clause, and thank the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing it forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(CONSULTATION WITH AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND.)

(1) Where a river authority area adjoins any part of Scotland, and it appears to the river authority that there may be water in watercourses or underground strata in that part of Scotland, or in the river authority area, which could be transferred from that part of Scotland to the river authority area, or from the river authority area to that part of Scotland, as the


case may be, the river authority shall, in so far as they consider it appropriate to do so, consult with local water authorities, river purification authorities and other authorities in that part of Scotland with a view to securing the best use of that water in the public interest.

(2) In this section "local water authority" and "river purification authority" have the meanings assigned to them respectively by section 5(4) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 and section 17(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause fulfils an undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), and other hon. Members, in the Standing Committee, who pressed for a Clause to make it clear that the new river authorities would be able to consult with river undertakings or responsible authorities north of the Border. The Clause has been devised in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Bence: Can we be told by the Parliamentary Secretary, as there is no representative of the Scottish Office here, whether he has had consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and whether the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with him in putting in this new Clause?

Mr. Corfield: I have just said that it has been done in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can give that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(Further provision as to WATER DISCHARGED FROM MINES.)

(1) In this section "mine" has the meaning assigned to it by section 180 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954.

(2) Where, after the end of the initial period, a person proposes to cease to make a discharge to which this section applies in a river authority area or to alter substantially the volume or rate of flow of such a discharge (whether as a result of a decision to abandon or discontinue the working of a mine or any part thereof or otherwise) he shall before ceasing to make the discharge or altering substantially the volume or rate of flow thereof, give to the river authority in the prescribed

form as long notice of his proposal as may be reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply where a person proposes to cease to make a discharge or to alter the volume or rate of flow thereof during the execution of necessary works or temporarily for the purpose of renewing, repairing or maintaining works, machinery or apparatus used in connection with the making of the discharge.

(3) This section applies to any discharge to a watercouse of water raised or drained from any underground part of a mine, not being a temporary discharge.

(4) Except in a case where such a contravention is due to unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause, any person who contravenes subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction, to a fine:

Provided that an offence under this section shall not be punishable on summary conviction by a fine exceeding one hundred pounds.—[Mr. J. H. Osborn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I have before me a list of companies, mainly steel companies, which use water from coal mines as one of their sources of water for industrial use. A problem has been raised. It was raised by me in Committee, and I discussed this matter with the industries concerned and suggested that they, in turn, should discuss it with the Coal Board.
The position is that certain companies engaged in the steel industry, which depend for their industrial supplies partly upon water discharged from mines into water courses, are apprehensive regarding the proposal to limit the powers to be conferred on the proposed river authorities in connection with the control of such water. The position, as I see it, is this. While mine waters are water resources within the meaning of Clause 2 and, as such, will, for example, have to be taken into account by river authorities in carrying out surveys under Clause 14, abstractions of mine water will be covered by Clause 24 and will not have to be licensed under the Bill in the case of water coming from mines.
Mine water is normally discharged into a water course or a river. A company extracting water from the river, which is relying on water discharged from the mine, is dependent upon that source of water. A policy decision to close an uneconomic mine could result


in such a discharge being cut off entirely, and, in this event, any industry dependent upon that source of supply is liable to grind to a standstill. Obviously, an uneconomic mine cannot be kept open in order that water should continue to flow. Where a mine is to be closed and as a result the water supply will be cut off, the river authorities concerned should be given sufficient notice to enable an alternative source of supply to be made available.
While it may be true to say that a company taking industrial supplies in these circumstances today is subject to this risk, the general control to be imposed by the Bill in future could put a company in such a position that it would be virtually unable to help itself and would be dependent on remedial action to be taken by the river authority. Surely this is a situation which a river authority ought to have power to deal with in the exercise of its new functions.
A new Clause was tabled in another place by Lord Sinclair of Cleve, during the Report stage of the Bill. The Minister, Lord Hastings, then was of the opinion that this problem could be dealt with administratively. He subsequently referred to the existing administrative arrangements which had been made with the National Coal Board, and said that the Minister was prepared to consider adapting and amending these arrangements to cover such circumstances. As a matter of fact, nothing has been heard of what the Minister's proposal was, so a revised Clause has been tabled for discussion at this stage of the Bill.
The most important thing about the revised Clause is that the period of notice to be given to the river authority is now to be
as long…as may be reasonably practicable having regard to all relevant circumstances",
and provisions have been added to cover cases of unavoidable accident or other unavoidable events.
The National Coal Board has been consulted by the steel industry, and the Board clearly prefers administrative to legislative action, and while it offers to do its best to advise relevant authorities of major changes in discharges from mines, it is inevitable that it may have to close mines at short notice.
The position is that there are certain industries relying on water discharged

by mines, and these mines, for very good reasons, may cease to supply water, and any industry which is cut off must have some alternative provision. The request is that that should be covered generally and not too specifically by this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Corfield: With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), I do not think that this is a Clause which is either necessary for the purpose which he has in mind or desirable against the background of the principles of the Bill. My horn. Friend rightly says that a mine full of water is a waiter source for the purpose of the Bill, but that by virtue of provisions in Clause 24 it would not be necessary to have a licence to use that water if it were being discharged from the mine during the course of the mining operations.
It is clear that river authorities have, first, a duty to draw up a balance sheet of their supply of water, on the one hand, and the demand on it, on the other, and that they have very adequate powers to ensure that they get the information with regard to discharges from the mine which may affect the supply side of the water account. Therefore, the river authorities have adequate powers to do their work.
If my hon. Friend has in mind firms which are abstracting from a stream and the stream, in turn, is fed by discharges from the mine, then the firms will, of course, want a licence because they will not be directly supplied from the water coming out of the mine, and if they have a licence they will have the same guarantee, if that is the word, of continued supply as any other licence holder. If, on the other hand, they are supplied directly from the mine, then they presumably have a contract with the mineholder, whether it be the National Coal Board or some other type of mine, and I should have thought that the terms of the contract were matters for the particular industry and that any risks that the supply might be cut off would be reflected in the charges.
In any case, my hon. Friend, I think, goes a little far in saying that in all cases it would be unreasonable after a mine had been closed necessarily to go on abstracting water from it. It might be a very valuable source of underground


water in certain circumstances—no doubt to a fairly limited extent but nevertheless valuable—and no doubt many industries would be able to make arrangements to continue to use that same source despite the fact that mining was not going on. For those reasons, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Clause.

Mr. Osborn: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, but I should like to ask him a question. Do I take it that if a company or industry is taking water directly from a mine, it might be administratively advisable and a good idea to arrange to have the supply put through some watercourse and obtain a licence after the Bill becomes law in order fully to cover itself in terms of the river authority?

Mr. Corfield: Perhaps it would be unwise to give advice of that sort "off the cuff". It depends entirely on whether the firm concerned is prepared to take the disadvantages along with the advantages. If it applies for a licence, it will have to come under a charging scheme. If it is getting the water very much cheaper from the National Coal Board, it might prefer to take the risk. It is not a matter on which I can advise it from the Dispatch Box, but perhaps on another occasion, and under different circumstances, the situation might be different.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(TEMPORARY PERMITS FOR ABSTRACTION OF WATER MAY BE GRANTED BY RIVER AUTHORITIES IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.)

In any case where, by reason of exceptional shortage of rain or other emergency the holder of a licence is in urgent need of an additional supply of water, it shall be competent for a river authority, on application being made to them in that behalf, to grant to the applicant a permit authorising, on such terms and conditions as they may think fit, the abstraction, during such period as may be specified in such permit, from a new source of supply of such quantities of water as may be prescribed therein and the laying of such pipes and construction of such works as may be necessary for that purpose:

Provided that the river authority shall not grant a permit under this section unless they are satisfied that the applicant has obtained the consent of the owner and occupier of the lands on or through which any such works are to be constructed and on or under which the source of supply is situate and that the abstraction of water from the source of supply

in question will not result in material prejudice to the holder of a licence authorising the abstraction of water from such source of supply or to any other person having an interest therein.—[M. G. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I did not have the good fortune to be selected for the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, perhaps because I was serving on another Standing Committee which was sitting at the same time. So I was not present during the previous debates on this matter. I understand that in Committee the point to which this Clause refers was mentioned but not debated. It is a small point but one quite important to the china clay industry, the principal works of which are situated in my constituency, although my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) has a very big clay pit in his constituency.
As no doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the china clay industry is much larger and much more extensive than most people suppose, providing the raw material not only for the potteries but for at least eighty other industries to a greater or lesser extent. Among other industries concerned are: rubber, plastics, textiles, linoleum, pharmaceutical products and cosmetics; and it is also a very large exporting industry, 70 per cent. of the 1,600,000 tons produced a year going for export. So it is important that the production of the material should be continuous.
The production of the material is totally dependent on water. The clay is washed out of the pits by powerful jets of water from monitors and conveyed in suspension in water through pipelines to the driers, the pipelines sometimes being of considerable length so that very large quantities of water are consumed. Though perhaps it is surprising in this country to envisage conditions of drought or circumstances in which one might not have enough water, that situation has arisen on several occasions in the clay-producing districts and can be a very serious matter indeed, because if there is not sufficient water to maintain the monitors and the flow of water through the pipelines the whole industry comes to a halt.
Clause 23 prevents any person from abstracting water without a licence, and Clause 36 prohibits the construction of any impounding works. But it would seem that by Clause 28 considerable time would have to be taken to obtain a licence—perhaps a month. Therefore, if the normal sources of water supply are put in jeopardy by a drought or some other cause, the clay-producing companies may be in very serious difficulties if they cannot put in an emergency supply at very short notice. There have been instances in the past when they have actually had to make use of the fire service in order to obtain emergency supplies at short notice. There does not seem to be in the Bill any provision for obtaining an emergency supply at short notice. There is provision about fire fighting, but there does not seem to be anything else.
Therefore, the new Clause seeks to provide a means for a temporary emergency measure, subject to safeguards for the owner of the land affected and for fishing and other interests.

Sir Henry Studholme: I support this Clause. It interests me particularly because in my constituency there are some very large china clay workings. This is a very sensible and desirable Clause. I know that in the past there have been occasions when additional water supply has had to be provided temporarily and quickly because of serious drought, since otherwise the operations of the workings have had to stop.
The Clause seeks to ensure that in such emergencies extra water can be speedily provided without a lot of rigmarole and red tape. At the same time, it is so designed as to safeguard the interests of all those other parties concerned with the use of water from that particular source. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to consider the Clause sympathetically.

Miss Joan Vickers: I support my two hon. Friends on this Clause. I was a member of the Standing Committee and put forward some of these points of view, although not so eloquently as they have done since they have more detailed knowledge than I. In view of what they have said, and the fact that we are only asking for this as a temporary measure in an emergency, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept

the Clause. I cannot understand why he should not do so. We are providing for exceptional circumstances of dire need.

Mr. Corfield: Of course, one has sympathy with the object of the Clause, but unfortunately when there is dire need in one industry because of shortage of water there is bound to be dire need elsewhere as well. That is the real difficulty. In the first place the Clause would allow the river authority to permit
…the laying of…pipes and construction of…works;…for that purpose: 
I am not sure what that has to do with the river authority, unless it affects the immediate banks. It would appear to be rather a master for private contract and for the Town and Country Planning Acts for planning consent. It is hardly a matter for the river authority. The Clause goes on to say that the authority must be satisfied
…that this abstraction of waiter from the source of supply in question will not result in material prejudice…
to other users.
This Clause goes right against the whole concept of the Bill. Other licence holders would have their rights derogated from by action endorsed or initiated by the river authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said, this Clause would operate in time of shortage due to exceptional drought. But it is at this very time that other licensees will also be most vulnerable.
There is no provision in the Clause for advertising to let other licensees who might be prejudiced know what is asked to be done so that they might object that their need is every bit as great. I am sure that these of my hon. Friends from the lovely rural part of the South-West will not think that the danger of cows dying of thirst is any less serious than a shortage of water for the china clay industry.

Mr. G. Wilson: Yes, I do.

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion, but I do not think that his farming constituents would agree.
It is wrong to say that this sort of emergency is not covered already by the Bill. It is clear that there will be no difficulty under the Bill as it stands in obtaining a licence covering the disused pits in the china clay industry or other


sources of water. As long as they all come from the same source of supply they can be covered by the same licence. Presumably what is worrying the industry and my hon. Friends is not that it may suddenly want more water than usual but that, although it wants the same quantity, less will be available.
But provided the licence covers its normal intake of water and that it has a licence for abstraction from the same source of supply, it will be covered. The new Clause would introduce instead a rather ad hoc method of meeting an emergency which is almost certain to arise with other abstractors at the same time.
I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. I hope my hon. Friends will appreciate that, under Clause 30, there is means of covering this sort of eventuality if it is properly thought out and arrangements are made with the river authorities, as indeed they can be made at present.

Mr. G. Wilson: While accepting my hon. Friend's statement, I hope that he will appreciate that 6,000 or 7,000 men are employed in a very small area of my division in these works, and I would consider that if they were thrown out of work it would be a greater tragedy than a few cows having shortage of water.

Mr. Corfield: The whole of the farming industry in the South-West might be affected.

Mr. Wilson: This Clause arises from circumstances of a similar nature when it was necessary to call in the fire brigade. However, if my hon. Friend says that other Clauses already in the Bill would cover the point, we will not press this matter further at this stage.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1.—(FUNCTIONS OF MINISTERS.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 21, after "Food", insert:
and, in the ease of anything falling to be done by the Ministers, means those Ministers"—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 3.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "and", to insert:
subject to the following provisions of this section".

Perhaps it would be convenient to consider at the same time the following Amendments: In page 3, line 23; in page 4, line 3; in Clause 9, page 8, line 19; in page 8, line 33; in page 8, line 44; in Clause 133, page 126, line 41; in page 127, line 2; and, in Schedule 2, page 133, line 17.
I would like now to raise a point with you on the last Amendment, Mr. Speaker, in page 133, line 17, leave out from "authority" to "and" in line 20 and to insert:
to whom the functions of that river board are transferred by virtue of section 5 of this Act".
As it appears on the Notice Paper, it is not as it should be. We have put forward a manuscript alternative, and with your permission, Sir, I would like to substitute that.

Mr. Speaker: I will approve of these Amendments being discussed together if the House so pleases. With regard to the manuscript Amendment, my position would be this: I have seen it and have approved of it. I would be willing to accept it if, and only if, there is no objection in any part of the House to my doing so in these circumstances. As I hear no objection, then in due course let it be accepted.

Mr. Corfield: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. Members opposite for their co-operation. I am sure that they appreciate that part of the trouble arises from the great number of times we have endeavoured to meet questions raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The background to this series of Amendments is that we must make abundantly clear to the river authorities exactly what are their seaward boundaries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) who pursued this matter in Committee—as, indeed, did the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull. East (Commander Pursey)—because we were under a slight misapprehension in taking as the model river boards which had boundaries for fishery and drainage purposes.
7.30 p.m.
Of course, for these purposes these boundaries do not normally have to be as


precise as where a charging scheme operates, when it is clearly of the utmost importance to people to know which side of the line they are on. A new Schedule has been set down to enable the Minister by order to make quite clear, where there is any doubt, what are the seaward boundaries. We are thinking rather of the stretches across estuaries and the mouths of creeks, and areas of that sort, which are not defined for land drainage purposes in the existing river board areas. This is the sole purpose. These are purely administrative orders. There will be opportunities for hearing objections and considering them, and there will also be an opportunity for making quite certain if there is any difference as to the exact boundary of responsibilities, where, for instance, two river authorities abut on either side of the same estuary. I hope that the House will accept this series of Amendments, which are purely machinery, to put right something which we realisedwas wrong but found rather more complicated to put right than we expected.

Commander Harry Pursey: I want to be clear that I am not losing my opportunity to discuss Amendment No. 110, the new Schedule. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me whether that is included in this series. I have no wish to say anything if it is not.

Mr. Corfield: No, it is not included.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman to say something later about the effect of the manuscript Amendment? I have studied both the original and the manuscript Amendment, and I am not quite sure what the difference is.

Mr. Corfield: This is purely a question of drafting and there is no intention to alter the apparent meaning. To some extent I am in the same position as the hon. Member. I think that the meaning of the two Amendments is clear. It is only at the last moment that I was told that there was a legal flaw which, I am assured, has now been put right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out "or parts thereof".
This Amendment deletes words which were accepted in Standing Committee in order that there should be no restric-

tion on debates on Amendments to Schedule 1, but they were accepted on the understanding that if consequential Amendments to Schedule 1 were not accepted—and they were not—these words would be withdrawn. That is what the Amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 23, leave out "under" and insert:
by virtue of this section, or of section 10 of".

In page 4, line 3, at end insert:
for the purposes of the functions of river boards relating to land drainage.
(7) The provisions of Schedule (Seaward boundaries of river authority areas) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 6.—(CONSTITUTION OF RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, at the end to insert:
generally or as being qualified in respect of the protection of land against erosion or encroachment by the sea or any other particular aspects of land drainage".
This makes plain that appointments of land drainage members to river authorities may be of persons qualified in respect of flooding from the sea or any other particular aspect of land drainage. It is in response to an undertaking which I gave, to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) in Standing Committee.

Commander Pursey: I wish to thank the Minister for this addition to the Bill. Can we be assured that while we understand erosion and encroachment, this includes flooding, as he put it, by sea inundation? In other words, will the new river authorities be responsible for flooding which we understand as flooding, in addition to what we understand by this horizontal erosion or encroachment, which might be only a minor matter whereas sea inundation, known in Hull as flooding, is major flooding? If the right hon. Gentleman could say another word on that and make it clear that there is no question but that erosion or encroachment by the sea does include major flooding, I should be grateful.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I should like my right hon. Friend to give a further insurance. The Amendment


would make the land drainage members of the river authorities qualify either on land drainage grounds generally or in accordance with the special qualifications. The Association of Drainage Authorities, which is concerned with inland drainage problems more than with sea problems or problems of flood protection, would very much like to be assured that when members with this new qualification are added to the river authorities, its representation, which in some river areas is very important, will not be reduced. Will there be any provision for increasing representation of inland drainage authorities when some special appointment is made on the lines of the Amendment?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is that protection against flooding is one of the transferred functions connected with land drainage which will be the responsibility of the river authorities, so I can give him a categorical assurance in answer to his question.
The reply to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) is that power is given to the Ministers concerned, in the original consultations which must go on before river authorities are set up, to increase the number of members in special cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out "relating to that subject" and to insert:
which relate to that subject as it affects the area of the river authority".
This Amendment complies with an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the effect that wherever possible the members qualified for appointment should have any necessary experience and relevant expertise of the area concerned.

Dr. Stross: I think it was to myself that the Minister very kindly gave this assurance. The words which he now proposes are ideal and rather better than those which I proposed to the Standing Committee.
I may not be staying until the House rises tonight, and for that I apologise, but I should like to say now that we have had many promises from the

Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, sometimes extracted, sometimes freely offered, but I have never known a Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary keep their word to the extent shown on the Amendment Paper today. I am sure that we are all grateful that on every problem, whether it was pollution or any other, if we had anything reasonable to put forward, our reward has come on the Amendment Paper today. I pay my tribute to the Minister and his colleague.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS OF RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 7, line 2 at the end to insert:
and where two or more local authority members are to be appointed by the council of a county, the council (subject to the last preceding subsection, shall, so far as may be practicable, select persons each of whom has local associations with a different county district or group of county districts, having regard to the appropriate penny rate product for the relevant area of each county district council for the relevant year".
I should like to say how much I appreciate the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), especially as I am now moving another Amendment which meets an undertaking given to him. In Committee he moved an Amendment whose object was to make county councils select their appointees to river authorities with regard to rateable value. I think that he had it in mind to go along the lines of Section 2 of the River Boards Act, 1948, but as we are dealing with smaller authorities and a number of local authorities, this is not entirely appropriate. We have put down this Amendment to meet that obligation, and we think it will be more easily followed by local authorities than the rather more rigid River Boards Act provisions which are not always complied with.

Dr. Stross: I rise merely to say that I am grateful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, after "member" to insert "or members".
This Amendment, again is in compliance with an undertaking given to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) to allow, where necessary, more than one member to represent navigation interests.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, leave out lines 33 and 34.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 9.—(AREAS OF RIVER AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFERRED FUNCTIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 19, leave out from "as" to end of line 21 and insert:
apart from this subsection, those waters and parts of the sea would not be included in the river authority area for the purposes of the enactments relating to fisheries".

In line 33, leave out from "as" to end of line 35 and insert:
apart from this subsection, those waters and parts of the sea would not be included in the river authority area for the purposes of the enactments relating to river pollution".

In line 44, at end insert:
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the construction of any reference in this Act to a river authority area, other than any such reference in this section or in Schedule 2 to this Act.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 12.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS OF WATER RESOURCES BOARD.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, at the end to insert:
(f) to bring to the notice of the river authority concerned any case where it appears to the Board that, for the purpose of securing the proper use of water resources in a river authority area, the quality of the water contained in an inland water in that area needs to be improved, and that the requisite improvement could be obtained through the exercise of powers conferred by the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961.
We were urged to write into the Bill powers to make sure that the campaign against pollution was properly safeguarded and I hope that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) will think that what the Amendment does is satisfactory. It empowers the Water Resources Board to draw the attention of a river authority—though leaving the responsibility for action to the river authority—to a case where it thinks proper use of the inland water would be

helped by a different, stronger, or varied policy in the campaign against pollution. This is in response to undertakings made in Committee.

Mr. C. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. He knew how strongly we felt about this. We felt that the Water Resources Board should play a part in relation to the prevention of pollution and I think that this Amendment is a considerable contribution to strengthening the Water Resources Board and to acknowledging that there is a relationship between conservation and the prevention of pollution.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, at the end to insert:
(5) In the performance of their functions under this section, it shall be the duty of the Board to keep themselves informed as to the requirements, in respect of the supply of water, of such classes of users of waiter as are likely to make major demands on the wader resources of river authority areas.
This Amendment and that in line 31, go together, and fulfil an undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) that words would be written in to make sure that the Water Resources Board kept in close touch with the main users of water so as to know their needs and likely trends of demand.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 31, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 14.—(PERIODICAL SURVEYS.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move, in page 15, line 28 to leave out from "shall" to "revise" in line 29 and to insert:
in accordance; with the next following subsection, from time to time".
I think that if it might be convenient if we were to take with this Amendment the Amendment in line 35.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): If that is the wish of the House, so be it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Amendment in line 28 is purely a drafting Amendment to pave the way for the Amendment in line 35, which contains a new


subsection. These Amendments are concerned with surveys and reports of surveys of water resources and the demand thereon under Clause 14. They are to give effect to the point put forward in Committee, and I therefore commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 35, at end insert:
(3) A river authority shall carryout revisions in pursuance of the last preceding subsection at intervals of not more than seven years, and, subject to that requirement, at such times as they consider appropriate, having particular regard to the times at which like revisions are proposed to be carried out by other river authorities.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 15, line 44, to leave out "and".
I think that it would be convenient if we were to take, with this Amendment, the Amendment in line 45.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: These Amendments are linked and their effect is to require a river authority to send copies of their reports under this Clause, and amendments thereto, to the councils of county and county boroughs, in other words, to the local planning authorities in their areas. The Amendments meet an undertaking given by my hon. Friend to secure the withdrawal of an Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) who sought to require copies to be sent to all local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page, 15, line 45, after "Board" insert:
and to the council of every county or county borough any part of which is comprised in the river authority area".—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Clause 17.—(GAUGES AND RECORDS KEPT BY OTHER PERSONS.)

7.45 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 18, line 20, after "apply", to insert:
to any gauge installed far the sole purpose of indicating the level of an inland water for the benefit of persons who fish in it, or".
In Standing Committee, it was suggested that the provisions requiring notification to a river authority of the

installation of any water gauge were a bit much for the normal gauges sometimes installed by fishermen to keep track of the height of a river at any time. We have met this point by putting a fisherman's gauge in the same category as gauges installed for less than 28 days, which are excluded from the provisions requiring notification to the river authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE FLOWS.)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, to leave out "and" and to insert:
(e) any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority having functions in relation to any other inland water, where it appears to the river authority that changes in the flow of the inland water in question may affect the flow of that other inland water, or, if that other inland water is a tidal water and there is no such navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority, the Minister of Transport; and.
This Amendment provides for the insertion of a new paragraph (e). The subsection prescribes the authorities with which a river authority must consult before drafting a statement of minimum acceptable flow. Among these are any navigation, harbour or conservancy authority having functions in relation to the inland water to which the statement relates; or, if the water is tidal and there is no such authority my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is to be consulted. The Amendment provides for consultation with the same authorities, or the Minister of Transport in respect of an inland water of which
it appears to the river authority
that the flow will be affected by changes in the flow of the inland water to which the statement relates. If a navigation authority which is not consulted by the river authority considers that the draft statement prejudices its interests it will have a right of objection under Schedule 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 20, line 28, to leave out "navigation".
I wonder whether it would be possible to take with this Amendment the Amendment in line 30?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House so wishes, yes.

Sir K. Joseph: This Amendment provides that where a minimum acceptable flow for one water is affected by the level of another water, the effect on navigation and the implication for the one water of the other water will be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 30, after "drainage" insert "navigation".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 24.—(EXCEPTIONS FROM GENERAL RESTRICTIONS.)

Miss Joan Vickers: I beg to move, in page 24, line 25, at the end to insert:
(c) in so far as the water is abstracted for use in any operations far the winning and working of any metal, mineral or stone and is abstracted from a disused mine or quarry formerly worked for the same metal, mineral or stone.
I am longing for the chance to thank my right hon. Friend, as other hon. Members have so graciously done, and I hope that this Amendment will give me the opportunity to do so.
During the Committee stage this Clause, which provides for certain exemptions from the licensing requirements of Clause 23, was amended. It was amended to secure that water abstracted from an excavation such as a china clay pit and used for mining operations should be free from the licensing provisions of the Bill and should, therefore, be free from any charge levied under a charging scheme.
The industry uses about 14½ million gallons a day for its normal requirements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said earlier, it is very important to the industry that the charge should not be too high, because at the moment the industry is not finding it easy to make a profit. At one time it had almost a monopoly in exports, but America has found that it has similar clays which it is using. Therefore, any extra charges imposed on our industry will drastically reduce the already narrow profit margin.
Therefore, this concession was given in Clause 23 freeing the industry from the licensing restriction, and from charges in respect of about 6¼ million gallons taken from and used in the working pits. Another 8 million gallons are

used daily. About 6,370,000 gallons of the 8 million gallons are taken from disused pits. It is to this point I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention. I gather that the industry accepts that, in relation to water taken from rivers or streams, there is no justification for putting the industry on a different basis from any other extractor.
I know that my right hon. Friend would agree that that is reasonable. The industry is not asking for anything very special with regard to water drawn from rivers or streams. The industry suggests that an exception should be made in relation to water taken from a disused pit and used in working pits. I ask my right hon. Friend to free this water from restrictions and from charges.
I raised this point in Committee by tabling an Amendment to Clause 24. Unfortunately, the Amendment was not considered acceptable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will now agree that water taken from disused pits and used in working pits should be free from restrictions and charges, because this will be of great benefit to the industry.

Sir Douglas Marshall: I support the Amendment. I shall not try to emulate the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers). The china clay industry, which some of us have the honour to represent, is an important industry. I want my right hon. Friend to realise that the Amendment deals with a disused pit which has water. If that water should be taken from that disused pit and put through meadowland or agricultural land and allowed to seep away, there is no charge. On the other hand, if one believes in what some people have believed, namely, waste not, want not, and uses the water, one is charged. This is absurd.
I am certain that, on reflection, my right hon. Friend will see the absurdity of it. I sincerely trust that he will accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. Wilson: I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Sir Douglas Marshall). These so-called disused pits are pits which are not being used at the time. It frequently happens that a pit which has not been used for some time is subsequently used. Meanwhile, it fills


with water. Under the Bill as it stands, if the firm concerned pumps out the pit so as to use the pit again, and if the water is pumped into the nearest ditch or stream, no charge arises. However, if the firm uses the water in another pit which is in use a charge is made.
The charge, even if it is only 1d. or 1½d. a unit, will be a substantial sum overall. It will amount to about £20,000 or £30,000 a year on the whole industry. This is an export industry which is facing very keen competition, and an increase in charges to the industry of £20,000 to £30,000 a year will be a grave blow. The trade unions agree with this point of view.

Sir K. Joseph: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would tell me where he got that figure.

Mr. Wilson: I got it from the trade union and also from the managing director of English Clays Lovering Poching and Co., Ltd. Assuming that the charge per 1,000 galls, were 1d. or 1½d., the total extra cost to the industry would be £20,000 to £30,000 a year, I am told. This assumes a low charge for the water. The union representative attended the House the day before yesterday and saw hon. Members who were interested in this matter. He felt keenly that something should be done to obtain an exemption in respect of water taken from a disused pit and used again in a pit being worked. He very reasonably pointed out that if an unnecessary charge of £20,000 to £30,000 a year were made, there would be that much less money with which to pay increased wages to the workers or to use in a reduced selling price in competition with others in the export trade. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give due weight to these points and accept the Amendment.
I was horrified when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary earlier compared the user of china clay pits with the necessities of cows. The quantities of water concerned are in no way comparable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said, 14¼ million gallons a day are abstracted and 60 million gallons a day are in circulation, in a small area. The number of cows required to drink that quantity of water could hardly find standing room on the area involved.

Sir H. Studholme: Important though cows are, I shall not refer to them at the moment. I shall concentrate on the important china clay industry. Under the Bill as it stands, if water is pumped out of a china clay pit and used again in the workings, there is no charge. If there is water lying in a disused pit and the firm concerned chooses to pump it out and let it run down the drain, no charge is made, but if it makes use of it in other workings a charge is made. This is neither fair nor logical. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have stood up to attacks frequently during the proceedings on this Bill but never to such a co-ordinated offensive from all the representatives of an industry as in this case. I congratulate my hon. Friends, though I fear I shall have to try to argue them out of their case. It is most unfair that a concession which my hon. Friend and I were persuaded to make in Committee, so as to enable no charge to be levied where water which is within a pit is allowed to be used for the process of manufacture, should be prayed in aid and used against us in argument for a far wider concession.
Under the Bill there is licensing control over all abstraction of water. To breach that without very good reason is a serious matter. It is also a serious matter if it be true that an industry's exporting power could be seriously weakened by a rise in the price of one of its main commodities. Water is one of the main elements of this important industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), who has moved this Amendment and so many others so cogently and briefly during the passage of this Bill, has painted the picture at its absolute blackest. My hon. Friend is not taking into account the fact that two powers exist for the use of river authorities which will mitigate any harshness which might otherwise be caused by the charging system.
8.0 p.m.
First, if there are pits that have gathered water in such a way as not to prejudice the main water supplies of the area—and, therefore, will not have


implications for other abstractions—there is power for river authorities to exempt that source of water from the licensing and charging system. I must add, in honesty, that I am advised that many of these pits fill not from surface water but from seepage; that is, seepage from underground strata. Under these circumstances if they are constantly being used and constantly refilling themselves by drawing on underground strata, that might affect the river authority in the supply of water to many other abstractors.
It is inherent in the Bill that there should be control over water so that the river authority will not be forced to go in for large works and, thereby, charge its abstractors more money. I can complete this part of my comments by saying that where pits are quite separate from the main sources of water in the area the river authority can exempt them.
Secondly, regarding the licensing fee, the river authority can grant a licence which covers a multiplicity of sources if they are all part of the same water resource. Several pits might be covered by one licence fee. For both of these reasons I believe that my hon. Friend painted the grimmest possible picture she could—a picture where all the water was licensable, separately licensed and all charged. It may be that in the sort of case my hon. Friends have in mind some of the sources about which they speak may be exempted from both licensing and charging. Certainly if the water comes as easily as they think—without any effect on other water sources in the area—I would expect there to be either the use of these exempting powers or a very small charge indeed.
I hope that in view of this reasoned cases—and without mentioning the considerable concession that has already been made—it will be possible for the china day industry to accept that it is in its interests, like every other industry, to ensure that water is sensibly, properly and economically used, which is the main purpose of the licensing system, which is the backbone of the Bill.

Mr. G. Wilson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has the thanks of the whole china clay industry for the concession he has already made. I am

equally sure that my hon. Friends and I do not intend to convey any reflection on the fact that we are grateful for what has been done.

Amendment negatived.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in line 45, at the end to insert:
(7) The restriction imposed by subsection (1) of the last preceding section does not apply to any abstraction by machinery or apparatus installed on a vessel, where the water is abstracted for use on that, or any other, vessel.
In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) expressed concern about the implications for ships in harbours or ports of the licensing system of the Bill. He asked whether they will have to have licences to take water on board for normal uses. The Amendment makes it abundantly plain that they will not.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(POWER TO PROVIDE FURTHER EXCEPTIONS.)

Mr. Bullard: I beg to move, in page 25, line 32, after "land" to insert:
or in relation to the quantity of water extracted".
I can deal with this matter briefly. I move the Amendment to help my right hon. Friend, his Department and the river authorities which may have to administer the licensing procedure under the Bill.
In Committee we discussed the question of small wells, particularly on farms, and the need for them to be licenced. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has been genuinely trying to have a proper rule written into the Bill whereby the unnecessary procedure of licensing small wells on farms and in small industries can be dispensed with. To licence them would be not only a big administrative job but would be attempting to deal with extremely small abstractors.
Some of the abstractions about which I am speaking might take place in very remote places, perhaps where wells have been used for many years for watering cattle and agricultural purposes. It would be an improvement to the Bill if a more carefully worded provision were inserted to define accurately these lower limits of abstraction. The Amendment seeks to give river authorities power to


ask the Minister to make an order allowing them to exempt wells from which less than a certain quantity of water is extracted over a certain period, say a year or a month or whatever time my right hon. Friend may have in mind.
I gather that my Amendment is not very well worded. I am not surprised at that because hon. Members who deal with these matters are not always the best legal draftsmen. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not hold it against me if the Amendment is not worded to perfection. I hope that he will see the sense of it and will accept the principle involved. It may be suggested that a de minimis provision such as this is already provided elsewhere in the Bill. I hope so, but I want to have it made abundantly clear that powers exist whereby river authorities need not go to all the trouble of licensing small wells.
To be frank, many of these small wells will never be licensed, whatever happens. A great many of them are either unknown or partly known. The river authorities will have an almost impossible task looking for them, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that should a prosecution take place of a person who has not paid a £1 licence fee for such a well there will be uproar in the area. I am referring to places where water has been drawn out of the ground in the same way for donkeys years, probably for watering cattle. If the Minister intends to ensure that poor old wells like this are to be licensed there will be more than just a stir in the countryside. The Government should not tempt the countryman to rise up in support of his fellows, for that is what he would do if an attempt were made to prosecute someone for using one of these remote wells without being licensed. It would be much better for my right hon. Friend to clear this point up here and now rather than run a considerable risk of disturbances breaking out in the countryside.

Mr. C. Hughes: The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) conjured up a picture that terrified me, but I am sure that it will make the Minister think very carefully. The hon. Gentleman said that river authorities might have to appoint a staff of inspectors to go round the countryside looking for these wells. Might it not be cheaper, in the long run, to exempt the wells rather than pay additional

salaries for inspectors? There is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Gentleman has said, and what is true of East Anglia is even more true of Wales. Time and again in our discussions we have referred to the mountain wells, and in the Standing Committee the Minister said that if he could he would at some later stage introduce a form of words to give hill farmers some protection.
The hon. Gentleman has made his case succinctly and clearly, and we on this side would support him. What he asks is not unreasonable. Many of these small wells in the countryside are not frequently used, the amount of water abstracted is very small, and I should have thought that it would have been in the interests of both the river authorities and the farming community to exempt these wells.

Mr. Jasper More: It was with great pleasure that I have heard the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) support this Amendment. There may be a problem in rich counties like Norfolk and Anglesey, but how much greater is the problem in a poor county like Shropshire, where we have hundreds and thousands of small farmers who have relied for generations on their wells and who have for years now been looking to my right hon. Friend to stimulate our local authorities to provide the water supplies that will give us taps, and so on. Many of us, alas, still have years to wait for that and, in the meantime, we must rely on our wells.
Nothing has caused more irritation to the farming community than the idea that they would have to pay this £1 tax on wells on which they have habitually relied for their water supplies, and I think that this Amendment is very reasonable. I do not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether I am in order to refer to its drafting, but if there is imperfection in it I suggest that there might now be made a manuscript Amendment and that it might be accepted by you in order to enable my hon. Friend's proposal to be accepted—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I must make it clear that I am not accepting manuscript Amendments.

Mr. More: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
In our discussions, we have realised that although the principle of minimal acceptable flow may appear to be all pervasive in the body of the Bill and applicable to all our rivers, it will not be applied to our mountain streams and small tributaries. We need to be practical here, not only about our streams but about our wells. During last winter those of us fortunate enough to have piped supplies might have found them frozen up, and those providing their own piped supplies may have found themselves in the same position. They all had to resort to the pump.
We shall not extract a great many gallons in any one year, so is it reasonable that we should either have to pay for this or have to go through formalities to avoid payment? If the whole problem could be solved on our behalf by the method the Section already outlines, and by reference to the quantity we are likely to abstract, would not that be simpler for us and, as my hon. Friend suggests, also be a great alleviation for those who will have to administer this Measure?

8.15 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I almost thought during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) that we were in France—the sound of massed tractors advancing was most intimidating—but I recognise…

Mr. Bullard: I think that in France the farmers dump the potatoes down the lift shaft of the tax office. I rather think that in this case it will be the inspector who will go down the well.

Sir K. Joseph: As long as it is not the Minister.
Despite this cheerful beginning to what I have to say, I recognise that there is here a problem that could, if badly handled, cause great distress and great resentment. I appreciate that, and not for one moment are we asking the House to reject this Amendment or asking my hon. Friend not to press it because of any fault in its wording. Clearly, had I thought the Amendment necessary for the improvement of the Bill, but that it failed through some form of words, I would either have spoken to him or put down something myself.
There is here quite a point of substance. As the House knows, the Proudman Com-

mittee believed, and reported, that our underground water resources are absolutely essential to a sensible conservation policy. As a result, we have put into the Bill a control or licensing system for all underground water in general. This provision merely extends to the whole country the more or less emergency and ad hoc powers already in our existing legislation, under which the farmers' wells in some areas—I believe in parts of East Anglia—are already under a control system.
The reason why some wells are already under a control system is that in parts of East Anglia, I believe, they penetrate to a very important water-bearing stratum which is depended on, or will be depended on, by many other abstractors, existing or potential. It is consequently necessary to apply some form of control. There are many other areas—in fact, over the vast bulk of the country—where such emergency powers under present legislation have not had to be invoked to control the use of underground water, and in just the same way I would expect that when the river authorities come into being they will use their powers under Clause 25(2,b) to exempt from licence and control—and, therefore, from charging—those parts of their area where the wells of farmers only draw water from a shallow stratum or one that is not significant for the water resources of the area as a whole. I would hope, therefore, that by means of the use of Clause 25, all these understandable requirements of my hon. Friends the Members for King's Lynn and for Ludlow (Mr. More) and the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) would be met.
If the river authorities do not invoke their powers, there is an Amendment on page 26, line 34, which gives power to citizens to ask the Minister to intervene.
In other words, it will be open under the later Amendment for the Minister to be requested to require the river authority concerned to set in motion the procedure under Clause 25. I think therefore that on these grounds my hon. Friends need have no fears that farmers' shallow wells will be put unnecessarily under the licensing or the charging system. I am satisfied that the Bill is adequately drafted to meet the case, but I will undertake as an added


reassurance to hon. Members, if it is their wish, that prior to the second appointed day I will specially remind river authorities of the importance of surveying their areas so that they may consider the use of Clause 25 for this purpose at the earliest opportunity. I must with all caution say that they will have to do a certain amount of work before they can responsibly use Clause 25, but I will ask them to get on to that work as one of their earliest responsibilities so that they can relieve farmers of unnecessary anxiety.

Mr. Bullard: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have said a little more about his objections to the method of quantity.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is quite right. I should have mentioned it. My objection to his method is that it would allow a given quantity, whatever it might be, to be drawn from areas where all underground abstractions might be very serious in their effect on the water resources of the whole river authority area, with consequent repercussions on their investment programme. What I am anxious to do is to save the river authorities from having any exemption imposed upon them, regardless of the significance of the strata being drawn upon by the wells. That is why I think that the powers of Clause 25 are a safer way of securing the same object.

Mr. Bullard: I thank my right hon. Friend and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out line 14.
It would be convenient if the House would agree also to take Amendments Nos. 29, 120 and 123.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That will be convenient.

Mr. Corfield: This series of Amendments arises from an Amendment which was withdrawn in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on my right hon. Friend promising to consider whether it would be possible to ensure that statements of minimum acceptable flow

should be sent to those people who registered for that purpose and paid a small charge. This is the starting point of these Amendments. The first and second Amendments follow from the addition which we hope will be made to Schedule 6, because the paragraph in Schedule 6 concerning the minimum acceptable flows would otherwise be incorporated in the procedure under Clause 25 where it is clearly not suitable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 17, at end insert:
and
(c) paragraph 4(g) of that Schedule were omitted"—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in line 34, at the end to insert:
(7) If, in the case of a source of supply in a river authority area,—

(a) it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the river authority and the Water Resources Board, that the question whether the restriction imposed by section 23(1) of this Act is needed in relation to that source of supply ought to be determined, but
(b) no application for an order under this section has been made,

the Minister may direct the river authority to submit to him a draft order under this section with respect to that source of supply.
(8) Part I, and, where applicable, Part IV, of Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect in relation to any draft order submitted to the Minister in pursuance of the last preceding subsection, subject to the modifications specified in subsection (5) of this section and to the further modification that paragraph 8 of that Schedule shall apply in relation to any objection received by the Minister from the river authority as it applies in relation to an objection received by him from a person on whom a notice is required by that Schedule to be served.

Mr. Corfield: This, again, arises from an undertaking given in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The House will remember that there is a provision by which the Minister can instigate the procedure for the revocation or modification of a licence. This procedure is parallel to it, where the Minister can instigate the bringing forward of proposals to exempt from licences under Clause 25. It is analogous in many respects to some of the planning procedures, but, as the Minister is making the suggestion rather than the river authority, it does necessitate enabling the river authority itself to be an objector.
That is provided for, and so is the need for my right hon. Friend, in the first place, to consult with the river authority and the Water Resources Board before bringing forward this procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28.—(PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION FOR LICENCE.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 28, line 9, after "published", to insert:
in the London Gazette and".
Perhaps this Amendment could be taken with the Amendments to lines 10, 14, 28 and 33?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House so wishes.

Sir K. Joseph: This group of Amendments writes into the requirements, when an application for a licence is made, the need to publish the application in the London Gazette as well as twice in local newspapers. This was pressed upon the Government in Committee from both sides of the Committee, and I hope the Amendment will meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and others.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 28, line 10, at end insert:
(other than the London Gazette)".

In line 14, after "published", insert:
(otherwise than in the London Gazette)".

In line 28, leave out from "during" to "and" in line 29 and insert:
a period specified in the notice in accordance with the next following subsection".

In line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) The period specified in a notice in pursuance of the last preceding subsection shall be a period beginning not earlier than the date on which the notice is first published in a newspaper other than the London Gazette, and ending not less than twenty-eight days from that date and not less than twenty-five days from the date on which the notice is published in the London Gazette; and a river authority shall not determine any such application as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section before the end of the period so specified.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 30.—(MATTERS TO BE SPECIFIED IN LICENCES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 30, line 15, at the end to insert:
from the source of supply to which the licence relates".

This Amendment brings paragraph (a) of Clause 30(1) into line with paragraph (b) where the words which are sought to be inserted are already in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 30, line 29, after "to" to insert:
a river authority, or to".
In Clause 30(3) an exception is made in the case of statutory water undertakers from the general rule that the licence has to specify the land in connection with which the water will be used. Clearly, it would be inappropriate. It would be equally inappropriate where a licence was granted to another river authority for transfer to another area. The purpose of the Amendment is to include a river authority in the same category as; statutory water undertakers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32.—(SUCCESSION TO LICENCES TO ABSTRACT WATER.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 31, lire 39, to leave out subsections (1) to (6) and insert:
(1) Where the holder of a licence under this Act to abstract water (in this section referred to as "the original holder") is the occupier of the whole of the land specified in the licence as the land on which water abstracted in pursuance of the licence is to be used (in this section referred to as "the relevant land"), and either, being an individual, he dies, or by reason of any other act or event the original holder, whether an individual or not, ceases to be the occupier of the whole of the relevant land and does not continue to be the occupier of any part of that land, and (either immediately after his death or the occurrence of that other act or event or sub sequently) another person (in this section referred to as "the successor") becomes the occupier of the whole of the relevant land,—

(a) the original holder (except where, being an individual, he has died) shall cease to be the holder of the licence, and
(b) the successor shall become the holder of the licence.

(2) Where the preceding subsection applies, the successor shall cease to be the holder of the licence at the end of the period of one month beginning with the date on which he became the occupier of the relevant land unless before the end of that period he has given to the river authority notice of the change in the occupation of the relevant land.
(3) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for conferring on a person who, after the death of the original holder or the occurrence of any other act or event whereby


the original holder ceases to be the occupier of the relevant land or of part of that land, becomes the occupier of part of the relevant land, a right in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations—

(a) to become the holder of the licence, subject to provisions corresponding to the last preceding subsection, or
(b) to apply for, and to the grant of, a new licence containing provisions (as to quantities of water and otherwise) determined in accordance with the regulations by reference to the provisions of the original licence,

or for conferring on the original holder, where he continues to be the occupier of part of the relevant land but ceases to be the occupier of another part of that land, a right, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, to apply for, and to the grant of, a new licence as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(4) Any regulations made in pursuance of the last preceding subsection may provide that, in relation to an application for a licence made by virtue of the regulations, or to a person entitled to make such an application, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
Could we at the same time take the Amendments to page 33, line 36 and Clause 52, page 50, line 22, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government have never concealed the fact that we have not been quite happy about the provisions in the Bill as drafted for the succession to licences. There has been no provision in the Bill as at present before the House for the succession to licences where the land with which the licence runs gets divided.
We are proposing by these Amendments to provide clearly for the succession to the licence where the land passes on to the next licence holder undivided, but we provide by this Amendment that for all other contingencies where the land is divided the Minister shall have the power and duty, by regulations, to lay down the exact procedure. We shall expect to produce these regulations, which will be subject to Parliamentary procedure, before the end of the initial period.
I apologise for having this rather complicated matter to write into the Bill at this stage.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Hughes: I have one question to put on this Amendment, and I think that both my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) wish to argue the same point.
As the Minister said, we have not had a great deal of time to consider these complicated provisions. This is a little unfortunate. We shall try to do our best. In subsection (2) it is provided that
Where the preceding subsection applies, the successor shall cease to be the holder of the licence at tile end of the period of one month beginning with the date…
At the end of one month, the successor to a licence loses the licence unless he or she has given the requisite notice to the river authority of the change of occupation of the land.
The question I put, with, I think, the support of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Gentleman opposite, is this. Is not one month, in all the circumstances, far too short? An example of what might happen has been suggested to me. The widow of a deceased licence holder remains in occupation of the land but, if she fails to give notice within one month, the licence lapses. Even if the land were left by will to someone else, the licence would, as I understand it, still lapse if the notice were not given within one month.
It may not be possible to take out a grant of administration in time. I suggest to the Minister—I understand that this would be acceptable—that the period should be extended to two months. It is more than possible that if the period were maintained at one month cases of hardship might arise, and I am sure that it is the wish of the House generally that this should be avoided if at all possible.

Sir Barnett Janner: I support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). Those of us who practise in the law know that questions of time can be extremely difficult. Quite often, a person who has some injustice done to him loses his opportunity to have the matter put right if he overlooks that there is a limitation of time. I myself have often come across cases—I am sure


that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who is in the same profession, will have done so, too—in which there has been serious hardship due entirely to oversight or to ignorance of the limiting period within which steps could be taken.
The point we raise now can be of considerable importance to the successor to the land. One realises that there must be a limit of time, but the period of one month will give rise to certain technical difficulties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey has explained, because it may be impossible, in some circumstances, for the person who is legally entitled to succeed to take the necessary step.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that we are trying not to get a special concession but to deal with a situation which might easily arise and in which considerable hardship might be caused to a person if he were confined to this limit. I would go further and say that there might be some provision whereby a person who had gone beyond the limited period should still, in a reasonable time, have the opportunity to apply for just treatment on giving sufficient and reasonable grounds for having overlooked the statutory period.
I was perturbed to hear that although the Law Society asked for the opportunity of discussing the Bill's provisions with the Minister, its application was not favourably considered. The Law Society has vast experience of legal procedure. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that what I am about to say will be said in the most friendly spirit. In cases of this sort, it is important that a professional body like the Law Society should not have to apply for permission to discuss certain matters with the Minister or the Department concerned. In fact, the Department should seek every opportunity of consulting the Law Society so that it might give its views on matters of which it has experience.
The Minister will understand that we are concerned about this. I hope that he will take into consideration the difficulties which can be caused if a time limit is such that it is almost impossible in many cases to observe it. I hope he will have this matter put right at a later stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, perhaps he will assure us that he will consult the Law Society on this point.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that I can say without conceit that my right hon. Friend the Minister has ranged against him three practising solicitors behind whom is the Law Society. This Clause, as drafted, is extremely difficult to understand, but, if I understand it aright, it means that if, for example, a relative living with the original holder of a licence goes on living in the premises on the relevant land after the original holder dies, that relative must give notice to the authority within one month of the death.
This is quite unrealistic. In any normal case it is not possible to get representation of the estate of a deceased person within one month. By this Clause the relatives are put to an almost impossible task which may cause considerable hardship because, if they do not give notice within one month—and they may not know anything about having to give notice for this—the authority will have the right to grant a fresh licence, with fresh charges, fresh fees, fresh conditions, and so on.
I am not sure whether we have read the Clause right. It certainly states that where the original holder is the occupier of the relevant land, and being an individual he dies, and another person, referred to as "the successor", becomes the occupier of the whole of the relevant land, then the original holder shall cease to be the holder of the licence and the successor shall hold the licence. In the middle of those words in paragraph (a), however, there is interposed in parenthesis
(except where, the previous holder having been an individual, he has died)
The whole of that sentence states that
the previous holder (except where, the previous helder having been an individual, he has died) shall cease to be the holder of the licence".
If he has died, surely he has ceased to be the holder of the licence. Why, then, have the words in parenthesis? This seems to refute the old saying that "You cannot take it with you when you die." The Clause seems to envisage that you can take it with you when you die, and that it is necessary for the draftsman of the Bill to say specifically that the gentleman who takes the licence with him when he dies does not come within the Clause. Although that is the logic of the words used in the Clause, it seems to me to be quite illogical and I should like


my right hon. Friend to explain why these words appear.
I can only think that in sense, one must disregard those words and assume that subsection (2) applies when a person who holds the licence dies and someone succeeds to it who is in occupation and that person must give notice within one month of the death, otherwise the licence ceases and application must be made for a fresh licence, to which may be applied new conditions and charges. If that is the case, it is not recognising the normal position in the case of a death.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) asked whether we could not extend the period from one month to two months. That would not be sufficient. I should regard a six-month period as reasonable. When somebody dies, every person who has a debt against the estate is always prepared to wait that period until representation has been granted. All the authorities who have claims against the person who has died always refrain from pressing their claims for a period which is sufficient to obtain representation to the estate.
Nobody would be harmed by a six-month period in this instance. Who would be the loser if that were the period? Surely, it would not be the authority. What would it lose by not having this notice? If the authority inquires and is informed that the licence holder has died and representation is being obtained to his estate, like all other authorities it would expect to wait until representation was obtained.
I do not know what we can do about it at this stage, unless, perhaps, my right hon. Friend will say that the words in parenthesis which I have quoted take the case entirely out of subsection (1) and somehow put it into the subsection under which regulations can be made about it. Then, there might be some escape from the Clause. Otherwise, it is difficult to know what to do at this stage. I assure my right hon. Friend, however, that the Clause cannot be worked reasonably in practice and that in many cases it may cause great hardship.

8.45 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: After some months on the Bill, I must confess that I am for a moment uneasy about something. Hon. Members have shown reason to doubt

whether we have got it exactly right as drafted. I am not sure that there is anything we can do at this stage even if I were satisfied that there was a better way of handling it.
The problem is that the control of water is important. We cannot lightly allow unlicensed, uncontrolled use of water to go on for a period of months, possibly during a whole season of water shortage. Therefore, it is important to keep the period without control as short as possible.
On the other hand, I do see that a widow might not realise she had to register within a month and that this might lead to some difficulty. What I suggest I do is to draw to the attention of river authorities—and there are ample powers in the Bill to enable me to prescribe this sort of thing—the importance of marking very clearly, in large letters, on the licence, that on the death of the licence holder the application for transfer has to be made within a month.
Let me say, in answer to some of the points which have been made, that the succession to the land concerned is not legal succession; that is to say, a widow would not have to take out letters of administration—or any of the legal phrases which are beyond me at the moment—before she could apply for continuation of the licence. The succession is to the occupation of the land. That, I hope, removes one difficulty.
Secondly, the one month runs from the occupation of the land, not necessarily from the death. In the case of a widow who is living with her husband on the land, the month will run one month from the death. If somebody comes into occupation by reason of a death the month will run from the occupation of the land.

Sir B. Janner: I do not think that that contention is quite correct. I do not see how we can have occupation. Does that mean that if somebody illegally occupies the land he will stand in the place of the legal occupier? I do not think the Minister would be right about that. Would the Minister consult the Law Society on the matter?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I will certainly consult the Law Society before these regulations are made. That I will gladly undertake to do.
Perhaps I could correct a mistake I made previously when I referred to the regulations passing the parliamentary procedure. I should have said that they will pass through the parliamentary procedure of the negative sort.
I think that the means I have indicated, clear marking on the licence of the need to register after the death, and to do so within one month of the death, will reassure hon. Members that this will be workable. I know we all agree that a fairly rapid succession to the licence is important for the control of water. On the other hand, I accept that the period must not be too short, else the effects could be draconic. I will certainly consult the Law Society, and if it becomes necessary, as a result of any consultation, I will here and now bind myself to tell river authorities that they must proceed in a certain way in administering even the powers which are in this new Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend will realise, of course, that river authorities will not be able, if I may so put it, to get out of the Act. They are told, and are given a mandatory statement here, that the licence comes to an end at the end of that month. What month it is is rather doubtful, because my right hon. Friend said it runs from occupation. In the case of an intestacy I think the occupier, till the grant is obtained, is in fact the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. If he has to come into this during that period of one month, it does raise not a little difficulty.

Mr. C. Hughes: I should like to support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said, and make a suggestion to the Minister. The Minister said he feels in doubt about this matter. Is there not another course open to him, namely, that when these Amendments go to another place for consideration it will be possible for the Government to substitute "two" for "one" in this Amendment? Or three or four, as the case may be?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the question just put to me is that I do not know. I shall consider that and see whether it is practicable. It would have implications for this House, also. I undertake to consult with the Law

Society about the regulations to be made under this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 36, leave out from "and" to end of line 39 and insert:
where such licence is transferred by virtue of any such order, or by virtue of any other statutory provision, or is included in any sale or lease under section 122 of the Public Health Act 1936, the person to whom it is transferred, old or leased shall become (in the case of such a transfer, to the extent specified in the statutory provision in question, and, in the case of a lease, for the period of the lease) the holder of the licence for the purposes of this Act.
(8) Where any person who becomes the holder of a licence by virtue of the provisions of this section or of regulations made there under gives notice to the river authority in accordance with those provisions, or any person who becomes the holder of a licence by virtue of the last preceding subsection notifies the river authority that he has become the holder of the licence, the river authority shall vary the licence accordingly; and where, by virtue of the provisions of this section or of any such regulations a person ceases to be the holder of a licence in such circumstances that no other person thereupon becomes the holder of it, the licencs shall cease to have effect".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 33.—(ENTITLEMENT TO LICENCE OF RIGHT.)

Amendment made: In page 35, line 13, after "of", insert "section 30 of this Act and of".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 34.—(LICENCES OF RIGHT FOR STATUTORY USERS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 36, to leave out lines 3 to 18 and to insert:
any quantity specified in the licence as a quantity of water authorised to be abstracted in pursuance of the licence during a period or periods so specified shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be determined by reference to the requirements of the applicant as indicated by (and not, except by virtue of the next following subsection, to be taken to exceed) the quantities of water proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the river authority to have been abstracted from the source of supply in question by the applicant or his predecessors from time to time during the relevant period by virtue of the relevant statutory provision.
(4) In determining any quantity to be specified in the licence, in a case falling within the last preceding subsection, the river authority shall have regard to the terms of the relevant statutory provision and to such of the following matters as are proved to their reasonable satisfaction (in addition to the


quantities of water proved to have been abstracted as mentioned in the last preceding subsection) that is to say—
(a) the seasons of the year during which the quantities of water abstracted during the relevant period, as mentioned in the last preceding subsection, were so abstracted".
May this be considered with the following Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.

Sir K. Joseph: There was a question in Committee about the basis on which river authorities should fix the quantity of water to go with a licence of right arising from a statutory authorisation which had not itself fixed the quantity of water authorised. The view has been expressed strongly that the provision in the Bill at present which leaves the fixing of the quantity largely to the discretion of the river authority is too much at large. This Amendment seeks to fix the quantity which the river board shall allow much more closely to the quantity which had previously been abstracted. This will reassure such licensees of right that the quantity which they will be allowed will have a close relation to the quantity that they had been previously abstracting, even where the statutory authorisation under which they had been abstracting did not authorise the quantity.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 29, leave out "the last preceding subsection" and insert "subsection (3) of this section".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 36, line 34, at the end to insert:
either or both of the following, that is to say".
This and the following Amendment are both drafting Amendments. Perhaps it was rather ungracious of me to say that. They are drafting, but they meet a criticism put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 36, line 38, leave out "or" and insert "and".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 35.—(LICENCES OF RIGHT FOR NON-STATUTORY USERS.)

Amendment made: In page 37, leave out lines 1 to 23.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 38.—(REFERENCE OF APPLICATIONS TO MINISTER.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 40, line 1, to leave out subsection (3).
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps we might consider with this Amendment the next two Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Corfield: They are consequential upon the fact that in Standing Committee we inserted the new Clause 41. They are consequential drafting Amendments and do not alter the substance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39.—(APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF RIVER AUTHORITY.)

Amendment made: In page 40, line 29, leave out "section" and insert "Part of this Act".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 42.—(REVOCATION OR VARIATION ON APPLICATION OF HOLDER OF LICENCE.)

Amendment made: In page 43, line 15, leave out "40" and insert "41."—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 43, line 17, after "licences," insert:
in pursuance of such applications.
This is virtually a drafting Amendment. Clause 42(2) applies Clauses 28, 29, and 38 to 41 to applications for revocation and variation of licences. The Amendment makes clear that this provision applies to applications for variation made by licence holders and not to proposals for variation initiated by river authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 43, line 18, at the end to insert:
Provided that, where the proposed variation is limited to reducing the quantity of water authorised to be abstracted in pursuance of the licence during one or more periods, sections 28 and 39(4) of this Act shall not apply.
This is a very small Amendment of substance. The object of it is to say


that where there is a proposal for revocation or variation of a licence the result of which can only be to reduce the amount, it is not considered necessary for the applicant for the revocation or variation to do the advertising he would normally do as an applicant for a licence otherwise incorporated in the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43.—(PROPOSAL BY RIVER AUTHORITY TO REVOKE OR VARY LICENCE.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 43, line 22, at the end to insert:
(2) Where, either in consequence of representations made to the Minister or otherwise, it appears to the Minister that a licence under this Act granted by a river authority ought to be reviewed, but no proposals for revoking or varying the licence have been formulated by the river authority under the preceding subsection, the Minister may, as he may consider appropriate in the circumstances,—
(a) direct the river authority to formulate proposals for revoking the licence, or
(b) direct the river authority to formulate proposals for varying the licence in such manner as may be specified in the direction.
May we discuss at the same time the next Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because they conveniently go together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if it is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Corfield: This is really the other half, so to speak, of the Amendments that we moved under Clause 25 to give the Minister an opportunity to initiate under Clause 25 with regard to exemption of water resources and in this case with regard to revocation of licences either on representation or for other reasons if the Minister thinks that a review is necessary which involves revocation or variation of a licence. These provisions enable that to be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 43, tine 24, leave out "the preceding subsection" and insert:
either of the preceding subsections."—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 43, line 25, after "published", insert:
in the London Gazette and".
I should be grateful if we might at the same time consider, with your per-

mission, Mr. Deputy-speaker, the next four Amendments with this one, because they can conveniently be taken together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if it is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Corfield: The purpose of these linked Amendments is to bring the provisions of Clause 43 for giving notice of proposals by a river authority to revoke or vary a licence into line with those in Clause 28 which relate to the notice of applications for licences. Once again, there was an undertaking to bring these two sets of provisions into line, and these Amendments fulfil it.

Mr. Denis Howell: In welcoming these Amendments, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in the Standing Committee in resisting the Amendments which I then tabled he suggested that Birmingham Corporation should employ Welsh-speaking clerks to look at obscure Welsh newspapers to see that they had the correct advertisements in them. I have since found that it would be impossible even in Birmingham, with its influx of Welshmen, to find sufficient Welsh-speaking people employed by the local authority. We are, therefore, greatly relieved that this burden has been removed and that we can now all read the London Gazette and sleep easily.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 43, line 26, after "newspapers", insert:
(other than the London Gazette)".

In line 50, after "published", insert:
(otherwise than in the London Gazette)".

In line 42, leave out from "during" to end of line 43 and insert:
a period specified in the notice in accordance with the next following subsection".

In page 44, line 6, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) The period specified in a notice in pursuance of the last preceding subsection shall be a period beginning not earlier than the date on which the notice is first published in a newspaper other than the London Gazette, and ending not less than twenty-eight days from that date and not less than twenty-five days from the date on which the notice is published in the London Gazette; and a river authority shall not proceed with any such proposals before the end of the period so specified.—[Mr. Corfield.]

9.0 p.m.

Clause 44.—(REFERENCE OF PROPOSALS TO MINISTER.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 45, line 14, at end to insert:
(4) The provisions of subsections (5) to (7) of section 29 of this Act shall apply in relation to any proposals referred to the Minister as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section as if in those provisions any reference to the river authority were a reference to the Minister and any reference to the application were a reference to the proposals.
(5) In determining under this section whether a licence should be varied, and, if so, what direction should be given under subsection (3) of this section, the Minister shall consider whether any such direction would require the licence to be varied so as to authorise derogation from protected rights.
(6) In subsections (5) to (7) of section 29 of this Act, as applied by subsection (4) of this section, any reference to "the preceding provisions" shall be construed as a reference to subsections (1) and (5) of this section.
(7) Any reference in this section to authorising derogation from protected rights shall be construed in accordance with subsection (9) of section 41 of this Act.
At the moment, the Minister has to consider, under Clause 43, proposals to revoke or vary a licence where they are to be made by the river authority, the licensee having objected. The procedure is carefully laid down for ministerial hearing, but nothing is written in the Bill about how the Minister shall decide the case before him. This Amendment requires the Minister to decide whether the revocation or the variation shall be made and to take into account the considerations behind the minimum acceptable flow decision relating to the particular stream, or the considerations which would be taken into account if a minimum acceptable flow decision were being made. It would also require him to consider carefully, when making his decision, whether it would derogate from any protected rights.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO SPRAY IRRIGATION.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 45, line 18, to leave out "an inland water" and to insert
a source of supply in a river authority area".
Perhaps it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following three

Amendments: in page 45, line 30; in page 45, line 34; and in page 46, line 2.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be convenient.

Sir K. Joseph: Clause 45 was inserted in Standing Committee and deals with the special provisions as to spray irrigation. The first object of these Amendments is to extend the scope of control over spray irrigation to cover abstractions from underground strata which, in the opinion of the river authority, are likely to affect the flow in an inland water which is already subject to licensing control.
The second change is to alter the wording in the Clause from "used" in relation to spray irrigation. The point is not to control the use to which a fanner puts water which he has already stored in a reservoir and which he may wish to use for irrigation. It is rather to control the abstraction of water for inland irrigation. That is why the wording is changed from "used" to "abstraction".

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 45, line 22, to leave out "drought" and to insert "shortage of rain".
It was considered by the semantic experts in the Committee that the word "drought" should be replaced by the phrase "shortage of rain". That is just what the Amendment seeks to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 45, line 30, leave out from "be" to end of line 31 and insert
abstracted in pursuance of the licence from the source of supply in question for use for that purpose, and, in relation to that period, the licence shall have effect subject to that reduction accordingly:
Provided that the river authority shall not serve such a notice in respect of abstraction of water from underground strata unless it appears to them that such abstraction is likely to affect the flow, level or volume of an inland water (not being an inland water falling within section 2(3) of this Act or an inland water comprised in an order under section 25 of this Act)".

In page 45, line 34, leave out "inland water" and insert "source of supply".

In page 46, line 2, leave out "used" and insert "abstracted for use".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 46.—(COMPENSATION FOR REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF LICENCE.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 46, line 35, at the end to insert:
(6) For the purpose of assessing any compensation under this section, in so far as that compensation is in respect of loss or damage consisting of depreciation of the value of an interest in land, the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall, so far as applicable and subject to any necessary modifications, have effect as they have effect for the purpose of assessing compensation for the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land.
(7) Where the interest in land, in respect of which any compensation falls to be assessed in accordance with the last preceding subsection, is subject to a mortgage—

(a) the compensation shall be assessed as if the interest were not subject to the mortgage;
(b) a claim for the compensation may be made by any mortgagee of the interest, but without prejudice to the making of a claim by the person entitled to the interest;
(c) no such compensation shall be payable in respect of the interest of the mortgagee (as distinct from the interest which is subject to the mortgage); and
(d) any such compensation which is pay able in respect of the interest which is subject to the mortgage shall be paid to the mortgagee, or, if there is more than one mortgagee, to the first mortgagee, and shall in either case be applied by him as if it were proceeds of safe.
This Clause makes provision for the payment of compensation for loss or damage where a licence is revoked or varied unless, of course, in the case of a licence to abstract water there has been no abstraction for seven years.
The object of these Amendments is to make it clear that in applying the Land Compensation Act, 1961, account is taken of the fact that one is compensating for a loss in value and not for the actual acquisition of the land itself. New subsection (6), therefore, provides broadly that compensation for depreciation will be the difference between the value of the interests concerned before and after the revocation or variation of the licence. The new subsection (7) follows very closely similar provisions in the Town and Country Planning Acts and the whole object is to remove any doubt where interest is subject to a mortgage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47.—(REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF AUTHORISATION TO IMPOUND UNDER ALTERNATIVE STATUTORY PROVISION.)

Amendments made: In page 46, line 38, leave out from "persons" to "are" in line 39.

In line 41, leave out from "not" to end of line 6 on page 47 and insert:
the provisions of this Part of this Act and of section 102 thereof shall have effect (with the necessary modifications) as if any reference in those provisions to a licence under this Act, or to the holder of a licence under this Act, where the reference is to the revocation or variation of such a licence, included a reference to that authorisation, or to those undertakers or other persons, as the case may be".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 49.—(RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST RIVER AUTHORITY.)

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 48, line 12, after first "that", to insert "(a)".
It may be convenient to take with this Amendment the Amendment in page 48, line 19, at the end to insert:
or
(b) when granting or varying such a licence the river authority had taken all such care as in all the circumstances could be reasonably expected to ensure that the abstraction (or, as the case may be, the obstruction or impeding of the flow of the inland water) authorised by the licence would not derogate from the protected right of the plaintiff.
(4) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection the court shall in particular have regard to the knowledge which when granting or varying the licence was or could reasonably have been expected to be at the disposal of the river authority as to the effect on the protected right of the plaintiff".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. He has had the good fortune to have to be away on the Thames today looking after Conservancy business. The onus has therefore fallen upon me to speak on behalf of the River Boards Association on this occasion.
This matter was discussed very fully in Standing Committee and is regarded as of prime importance by the Association and it will, therefore, be of prime importance to the river authorities when they take the place of the present river boards. I draw attention not particularly to the words, but to the object underlying the Amendment.
In Committee, the Minister said:
If there proves to be a way in which we can move a step to help my light horn. Friend without weakening the value of the licence…".—(Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18th June, 1963; c. 523.]
and he went on to say that he would do so. Unfortunately, it appears that he has not been able to take that requisite step and that is why I am moving the Amendment.
It seeks to deal with the case where abstractors who are injured by a breach on the part of the river authority have a right of action for damages against that authority. It will be noted that under Clause 29(2) a river authority has a duty laid upon it not to grant a licence which will derogate from the rights of any person with protected rights under the Bill. I will assume that every hon. Member knows exactly what a protected right is. It is well defined in the Bill. This is the position with which we are faced. A river authority will have an obligation to pay damages if in ignorance it issues a licence which will derogate from the rights of those people who have protected right sat the time.
It is significant that under Clause 50 the Minister has a right to reimburse a river authority should the Minister under his own powers grant this licence which has not been granted by the river authority. I ought to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is a permissive right on the part of the Minister, and therefore the Minister may be in the position of granting a licence, and the river authority, by reason of the fact that the Minister has granted that licence, may have to pay compensation to the owners of the protected rights whose rights have been derogated from. It is understood that this is almost a unique precedent, and the River Boards Association is very concerned about this burden being placed on the river boards, particularly as for several years they will not have the requisite hydrometric data on which to base calculations as to the flow of particular rivers.
Today's debate has brought out the difficulty of fixing these minimum acceptable flows, and it has further been brought out today that very likely these minimum acceptable flows, due to the absence of hydrometric data, will not be

available for several years. It is the task of the river authorities to make the fullest possible use of the available resources of water, but if they feel that they are putting themselves, the taxpayers, and ratepayers at risk by granting these licences, they may well be inhibited from granting as many licences as they would naturally wish to do and thereby make use of the full availability of water resources.
Again, river authorities may be put to considerable expense due to this power in this Clause, because they will have to take out an insurance policy to cover themselves against possible action for damages under this Clause. There may well be considerable public expense if something in the nature of the Amendment which I am proposing is not accepted by the Government.
The Amendment really places the burden of proof on the river authorities who must establish
that all reasonable care was exercised on their part".
I know that my right hon. Friend has not before been able to accept the principle of this Amendment, but at this late stage I hope that he may have second thoughts and recommend the House to accept an Amendment of this nature, which is essentially reasonable in essence. The River Boards Association thinks that before the Boards shoulder such an unprecedented liability they should be provided with every reasonable defence so that they may safeguard public funds.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I know that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I try to answer this briefly, because I think that the basic argument was mulled over a good deal in Committee upstairs, and this Amendment only raises a variance of it.
Basically we are concerned with the principle of the Bill by which a licence shall be so to speak as gilt-edged as we can make it, something which really will give the licence holder confidence that the water he is licensed to abstract will be available and he can build his business or whatever it is on that basis.
The corollary of that is that the duty of the river authority must be very nearly absolute if this is to be consistent with a licence of the type that I have mentioned. I appreciate the fears of the


river authorities, or the river boards as they are now, but I think that there is another serious objection to the phraseology of the Amendment which says
…in all the circumstances could be reasonably expected to ensure that the abstraction…authorised by the licence would not derogate…
This not only has the effect of giving an extra defence. It also could well have the effect of throwing into doubt the sort of information with which a river authority ought to supply itself and the speed with which it ought to get on with the duties falling upon it under the Bill.
It always introduces matters on which there can be considerable argument, uncertainty and possibly litigation when there are phrases such as—
as in all the circumstances could be reasonably expected to ensure that the abstraction".
This would be a weapon which in the and would afford very little defence. It would lead to a great deal of litigation and argument. In so far as it formed a defence, it would weaken the value of the licence.Basically, I come down to the argument that the licence and its gilt-edged status is so fundamental to the Bill that I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 48, line 17, to leave out "drought" and to insert "shortage of rain".
This is another shattering Amendment to substitute "shortage of rain" for "drought".

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 49, line 10, at end insert:
(6) In this section any reference to authorising derogation from protected rights shall be construed in accordance with section 41(9) of this Act.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 52.—(REGISTER OF APPLICATIONS AND LICENCES.)

Amendment made: In page 50, line 22, at end insert:
and also containing such information as may be so prescribed with respect to persons becoming the holders of licences by virtue of section 32 of this Act or regulations made under that section".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 55.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART IV.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 53, line 17, to leave out from "but" to the end of line 23 and to insert:
(a) section 34(3) to (5) and section 41 of this Act shall have effect in relation to any such application, or to an appeal against the decision on such an application, as if it were an application for a licence of right, and
(b) section 49(2) of this Act shall not apply to any direction given in consequence of such an appeal.
(4) Section (Application by owner of fishing rights for revocation or variation of licence) of this Act shall not apply to a licence granted in pursuance of an application under subsection (2) of this section.
The Amendment has two purposes. The first part of the Amendment is consequential upon the introduction of Clause 41 into the Bill in Standing Committee and upon the Amendments which have been made this afternoon to Clause 34. The need for the second part of the Amendment arises from the introduction of new Clause 2 about fishing rights which we discussed earlier. This is the relevance of the new subsection (4).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 53, line 25, to leave out from second "the" to "if" in line 26 and to insert:
relevant transitional period".
Would it be convenient to take with this Amendment the Amendment in line 33.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is convenient to the House.

Mr. Corfield: These Amendments prolong the period during which an abstraction made pursuant to a licence of right granted in respect of an abstraction previously made other than under statutory provisions may still be challenged at common law. This, again, is in fulfilment of an undertaking to strengthen the protection of the common law rights, other than rights to abstraction—such things as fishing rights, the right to undiminished flow of river, and so on—until such time as the charging scheme is in operation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 53, line 33, at end insert:
In this subsection "the relevant transitional period", in relation to a licence granted by a river authority, means the period beginning with the second appointed day and ending with the coming into operation of a charging scheme prepared by that river authority under Part V of this Act.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 57.—(CHARGING SCHEMES.)

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move, in page 55, line 32, at the end to insert:
(e) the extent to which, in the case of abstraction of inland water, any land on a holding far the benefit of which the abstractor has a licence for spray irrigation may suffer from flooding or water logging as a result of conditions in the inland water from which the abstraction is made.
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) I advocate the Amendment to the House. Its purpose will be apparent. It is possible to combine spray irrigation with the abatement of a nuisance—surface flooding or waterlogging—and although spray irrigation has been made the exception to the rule from the point of view of charging for agricultural use, it seems that this should be an exception to the exception to the rule because where spray irrigation is being used as a means of abating a nuisance without in any way interfering with anyone else's rights or benefits—

Commander Pursey: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member who has not got his name down to an Amendment to move it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It is in order for another hon. Member to move an Amendment on his hon. Friend's behalf.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Further to that point of order. Am I right in thinking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be in order on the Committee stage but not on the Report stage?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Member, but I believe it to be in order on the Report stage, except when it is the moving of a new Clause. In this case I believe it to be in order.

Mr. Blackburn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I myself was stopped by a previous Speaker from moving an Amendment to which I had not put down my name.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that I had better restrict my Ruling to what I myself have to deal with.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Notwithstanding that interesting procedural discussion, hon. Members opposite may find themselves in sympathy with the Amendment since, as I am endeavouring to point out,' it concerns the case where a farmer confers a benefit on himself without in any way interfering with anyone else's rights or benefits. Since this sort of case could arise in parts of the country or under abnormal conditions, we would be advised to write it into the Bill here and now. I commend the Amendment to the House and commend my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn for having tabled it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not think I need go over all the arguments raised by the Amendment because they were gone into quite thoroughly in Committee. The important point to remember is that the farmer who has land which has been flooded—presumably during a period of heavy rain—at that moment will not wish to do any spraying. If he impounds the water on that land by some method he may do so without charge or licence and he may then use that water to his own benefit for spraying purposes later. In that case he is in the clear.
On the other hand, should he clear his land of water and, say, place the water back into the river and then later in the year, when there is a scarcity of water, desire to use it, he cannot expect to be relieved of charges which he would otherwise be compelled to pay for abstraction in time of scarcity. If the question of damage to property arises he has an opportunity, under Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act, to take his case to the board and claim compensation. Having considered the matter and what was said in Committee, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In which case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CHARGING SCHEMES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 56, line 11, to leave out "(f)" and to insert "(h)".
Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with this Amendment we may take that in Clause 60, page 58, line 26.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is the wish of the House, the two Amendments can be taken together.

Mr. Corfield: They are both drafting Amendments, and are tabled in anticipation of the two Amendments to the Sixth Schedule, in page 148, line 2, putting in two new paragraphs, neither of which is applicable to this Clause or Clause 60. They are therefore added to the provisions that are inapplicable, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60.—(REVISION OF CHARGING SCHEMES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 58, line 1, to leave out "(4") and to insert "(6)".
The provision originally contained in Clause 59(4) is now in Clause 59(6), hence the necessity for this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 58, line 26, leave out "(f)" and insert "(h)".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 65.—(ACQUISITION OF NEW INTERESTS OR RIGHTS OVER LAND.)

9.15 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 64, line 22, at the end to insert:
(e) as to any exceptions and modifications subject to which the provisions of subsections (3) to (5) of this section are to have effect where an interest in any of the servient land is subject to a mortgage, or is subject to a rent charge, chief rent or other rent, payment or incumbrance.
Clause 65 provides arrangements for the acquisition of rights over land by river authorities which would lead to the payment of compensation to the owner of an interest in the land, but it is necessary to provide for those cases where the land is subject to a mortgage or a land charge so that the payment to be made should go to someone other than the

owner of the land. It is to provide for that that this Amendment is tabled.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO POWERS IN RELATION TO LAND AND WORKS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 67, line 47, at the end to insert:
(3) Where, on an application under section (Application by owner of fishing rights for revocation or variation of licence) of this Act, the Minister—
(a) determines that the licence to which the application relates shall not be revoked or varied, and
(b) grants a certificate under subsection (8) of that section,
and notice to treat for the acquisition of the fishing rights to which the application related, or of an interest in land in which those rights are included, has been served by the river authority within the period of six months from the dale on which that certificate is granted, then, for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition in pursuance of that notice to treat, no account shall be taken of any depreciation of the value of the fishing rights, or of the interest in question, which is applicable to the operation, in relation to that licence, of section 31(1) of this Act.
Subsection (11) of section (Application by owner of fishing rights for revocation or variation of licence) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section.
The House will remember that, by an earlier Amendment, we have now made provision for compensation to the owner of a fishery interest where the new licence is decided by the Minister, on application to him, to have damaged the fishery interest in the period between one year after the granting of the licence and the agreement on a minimum acceptable flow. This Amendment provides that in assessing the compensation to be paid for the damage to the fishery interest, no account is to be taken of the depreciation of the fishery interest caused by the abstraction of which complaint is made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 78.—(BYELAWS FOR PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES.)

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 74, line 39, at the end to insert:
to the extent to which they prohibit the use of those waters for boating or by boats which are not for the time being registered with the river authority


This is another Amendment that has the full backing of the River Boards Association, and its object is to give to a future river authority the power to regulate, but not to prohibit, boating in its own area in certain circumstances. I would remind the House that this differentiation between prohibiting and regulating is already contained in the Clause, and the concept of this Amendment is in Section 76(1) of the Public Health Act, 1961. My right hon. Friend will recollect that when the Public Health Measure was going through the Standing Committee, I spoke on the subject of regulations in connection with boating.
I have very bad news for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, as I must again refer to the great difficulty of establishing the limit of tidal waters and, indeed, of tidal effect.
9.30 p.m.
The river boards are of opinion that unless the Amendment is acceded to the Parliamentary Secretary will run again into these very difficult stretches of the river referred to as tidal stretches. The River Boards Association has taken counsel's opinion and counsel are quite categoric that the limit of the tidal waters of any particular river has never been determined, is quite indeterminate, and indeterminable. Therefore, byelaws made under this Clause may well be subject to many legal battles just because the tidal stretches of the river must be indeterminate and for these reasons it would be advisable for the House to give serious consideration to the Amendment.
In future, the regulation of all kinds of boating and water ski-ing and the like will be of great importance on tidal stretches. If there is no navigation authority of similar authority that can regulate this kind of boating we may have boating getting out of hand on these stretches of river. It is for these reasons that I hope that my right hon. Friend will advise the House to accept the Amendment, which is supported by the River Boards Association.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has a disarming way of moving shattering Amendments. I feel that he is trying to do something here which will be very difficult to achieve. What he is sug-

gesting would have the effect of limiting the right of free navigation in tidal waters. I am advised that this would be a serious encroachment on common law rights, and it would not be proper in a Bill of this sort to introduce, as it were by a side wind, any such major change. I know that the River Boards Association has long wanted to increase its powers in this regard and I respect its wish to do so. I understand that the Association has taken legal advice, but I am advised that the byelaws would derogate from common law rights of free navigation on tidal waters and it would be going further than my hon. Friend realises if he presses the Amendment. If he does so I ask the House not to accept it.

Mr. Temple: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would remind my right hon. Friend that I said in my opening speech that in moving it there was no wish whatsoever to derogate from the authority of river authorities. It was purely to ensure tidal regulations where there was not a navigational authority or similar authority; but, having regard to what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I am glad that the hon. Member has decided to withdraw the Amendment. I was rather surprised at some of the words in it. It says that a
…river authority may provide, or otherwise make available, facilities for use by persons resorting to that inland water for the purposes of that form of recreation.

Mr. Temple: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The words to which the hon. Member refers are not in my Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wainwright: I beg to withdraw what I have said. I was on the wrong Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 79.—(PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT RESERVOIRS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 75, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(2) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, where the use for the purposes of any form of recreation of an inland water (not being


a reservoir to which the preceding subsection applies) is for the time being regulated by byelaws by a river authority by virtue of subsection (3) of the last preceding section, the river authority may provide, or otherwise make available, facilities for use by persons resorting to that inland water for the purposes of that form of recreation.
May we take with this Amendment those in page 76, lines 4, 8 and 15?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray): If that is the wish of the House.

Sir K. Joseph: This group of Amendments adds to the powers of the river authorities under Clause 79 to make provision for recreational facilities on reservoirs. There are a number of limitations in the new powers, and I will explain them.
First, it is necessary for the river authorities to make byelaws, and those byelaws will need Ministerial sanction. Secondly, they may not spend on the provision of recreation more than their income from the registration of boats and from such other sources, and that is a limitation upon their powers. Thirdly, they may, subject to those two limitations, enter into arrangements with entrepreneurs so as to secure the provision of recreational facilities on reservoirs.
I think these powers will be generally welcomed. I think they will be suitably safeguarded in the public interest, and I hope the House will accept these Amendments.

Mr. Wainwright: I will now come to the points that I was raising before. It appears to me that we need some clarification of the following words in the Amendment:
…is for the time being regulated by byelaws made by a river authority by virtue of subsection (3) of the last preceding section, the river authority may provide, or otherwise make available, facilities for use by persons resorting to that inland waiter for the purposes of that form of recreation.
Does this mean that the river authority will have total power over all who will be able to use that river for boating purposes? If that is so, it may interfere with people who wish to traverse the river by boat, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some further explanation of the words which I have read out.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, it could conceivably give such power as the hon. Gentleman mentions but only subject to byelaws which will have been approved by the Minister. I think that is the protection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 76, line 4, leave out "the preceding subsection" and insert:
either of tile preceding subsections

In line 8, after "(1)" insert "or subsection (2)".

In line 15, at end insert:
(5) The expenditure incurred by a river authority in connection with the exercise of the powers conferred on them by subsection (2) of this section shall be limited so that, taking one year with another, it will not exceed the aggregate of—

(a) the amounts received by the authority in respect of the use of facilities made available under that subsection, or the letting of works constructed for the purpose of providing facilities under that subsection, and
(b) the amounts so received by way of charges required by any byelaw made by virtue of subsection (3) (as extended by subsection (6)) of the last preceding section to be paid for the registration of boats for use on an inland water to which subsection (2) of this section applies.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 82.—(WATER RESOURCES ACCOUNTS OF RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 80, line 15, sit the end to insert:
and any payments made out of any sinking fund so maintained".
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think we could conveniently take with this Amendment those in page 80, lines 16, 21, 25 and 31.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Corfield: The purpose of these Amendments is to take account of the fact that under Clause 91(2) a river authority can borrow money by mortgage for any of the purposes specified in that subsection. It follows, therefore, that there is a need to enable the river authority to form a sinking fund out of the relevant fund, whether they be conservancy receipts or precept receipts under the transferred functions, in order to build up a. sinking fund to pay off the capital sums when due.
The first Amendment deals with the conservancy account; the last Amendment deals with the necessary drafting alteration, and the middle Amendments deal with the same problem where it applies to the transferred functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 80, line 16, after "incurred", insert "and payments made",

In line 21, leave out from "any" to "as" in line 24 and insert:
amounts paid into any sinking fund maintained by them, but excluding any payments made out of such a fund".

In line 25, leave out "expenditure" and insert: "expenses or payments".

In line 31, at end insert:
and any amounts paid by the authority out of such receipts into any sinking fund so maintained".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 84.—(REPLACEMENT FUNDS OF RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 81, line 44, to leave out "one" and to insert "five".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest that it might be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 89, in page 82, line 3, to leave out "one-tenth" and to insert "one-half".

Mr. Temple: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The Clause deals with the building up of replacement funds. Significantly, I think, the hand of the Treasury must have been at work. In one respect, the amount is only 1 per cent. per annum and in the other it is only one-tenth of 1 per cent, per anum. Even by Treasury standards, these figures are far too small. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and I therefore suggest the more realistic figures of 5 per cent. instead of 1 per cent. and one-half per cent. instead of one-tenth per cent. This will make a difference to river authorities building up replacement funds, and I trust that the proposal will be acceptable to the House.
I ask my hon. Friend one question about the building up of replacement funds. The House will know that some river authorities will be in a position very different from that of others in their need

for these replacement funds. Will the Minister, if possible, allow certain river authorities in exceptional circumstances to go beyond even the amended figures which we propose?

Mr. Corfield: The Government are willing to accept both Amendments. We recognise that the original figures probably were low in certain circumstances. I think I am right in saying that, in any case, the top limit will still require my right hon. Friend's approval. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to our attention.

Mr. Temple: I hoped to have a reply to my question. What would happen in exceptional circumstances? Would it be possible for a river authority to exceed this particular figure?

Mr. Corfield: I think that the answer to that depends on how exceptional the circumstances are. My right hon. Friend has certain powers of allowance, but the whole idea of this is a sinking fund. If a fund required exceptional drafting into it, one would have to have very exceptional circumstances since the whole object of the exercise is that it should be available for what is likely to be paid out of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 82, line 3, leave out "one-tenth" and insert "one-half".—[Mr. Temple.]

Clause 86.—(PRECEPTS BY RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 83, line 9, to leave out "or replacement fund" and to insert:
replacement fund or sinking fund".
With permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may we take Amendments Nos. 91 and 93 at the same time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that be the wish of the House.

Sir K. Joseph: This group of Amendments provides for a river authority to make contributions to a sinking fund maintained by it by way of precept in two circumstances. In the first place, to provide for a sinking fund maintained for any of its transferred functions—the House will remember that the transferred functions are financed by precept—and, in the second, to enable it to


make contributions to a sinking fund, set up as a result of its new functions, but in the period prior to the inauguration of charging schemes. The House will remember that, before charging schemes are effective, all new functions, too, are financed by a combination of licence charges and licence fees plus the difference made up by precept.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. C. Hughes: I must say that the term "sinking fund" in the context of this Bill gives us a rather sinking feeling. A sinking fund in relation to the transferred functions concerning land drainage, and so on, I understand, already exists under the rivers board. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that it will, therefore, be a question of transferring or, at least, renaming the sinking fund relating to the transferred functions in the name of the new river authority.
What will be the purpose of the sinking fund relating to the new conservation functions? As I understand, it has been suggested throughout our discussions that there will be adequate funds to meet the initial expenses of the river authorities in relation to staffing hygrometric schemes, and so on. What is the purpose of the second sinking fund concerning the new functions?

Sir J. Joseph: When works are embarked upon they will be financed, under authorisation by the Minister, by way of mortgage, with temporary borrowings until the mortgage is organised, if necessary, and a sinking fund will have to be set up to provide for the repayment of the borrowed money. It is to service a sinking fund set up because of new works on account of new functions started between the second appointed day and the starting of the charging scheme that will call for a precept to bridge any difference between the money provided by way of licence fees and ad hoccharging schemes and the obligations of the river authority. It is necessary for them to be able to fill this gap by way of precept and the Bill as drafted only allows them to do so to serve a replacement fund.

Mr. Wainwright: What amount of interest will be charged on any money loaned by the Government to the river authorities? Supposing that the river

authorities find that their income does not cover their expenditure, who will be responsible for their financial state?

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry for the hon. Member. He has not had the privilege of attending seventeen sessions upstairs on the Bill, otherwise he would know the answer to that question.
The Government will not normally lend money to the: river authorities. They will raise their money, as river boards do now, and they will pay the "going" rate of interest. They will receive into their water resources account—a special account to serve their new conservation function—the income which they get from licence fees and charges. They will be under the obligation from year to year to balance their account so that that income will suffice to meet their outgoings, including the interest on their loans. They will make their charging scheme in the light of the outgoings which they expect to have to meet. There is, of course, the obligation on them to have their charging scheme approved by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 83, line 14, after "fund", insert "or sinking fund".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 83, line 22, to leave out from "to" to "any" in line 24 and to insert:
the amount specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection any amount required to be provided in that financial year by way of new working capital, and there shall be added to, or (as the case may be) deducted from, the amount so specified".
The object of this Amendment is to give river authorities the power to build up a working balance. The principle of a working balance was well established under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, in respect of county councils and it seems only reasonable that the same principle should be followed for river authorities.
I know that it can be construed that the Clause could be manipulated by river authorities to give them a working balance, but it would not be right for the Bill to leave this House, recognising that working balances are necessary and having regard to the mechanism of Clause 36, assuming that river authorities could manipulate the Clause to give themselves


a working balance. It would be far more correct for this House to recognise that a working balance is necessary and to let us have everything above board and to let us have no trouble with the district auditor. I hope that, for these reasons, the Amendment will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Corfield: We do not altogether agree that the arrangements in the Bill do not permit the running of working balances by river authorities. Nevertheless, I know that the river boards are concerned about this matter. We are a little doubtful about some of the argument. However, we accept with goodwill the concern of the river boards and we are willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 83, line 31, after "fund", insert "or sinking fund".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 93.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR TRANSFERS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 90, line 29, to leave out from "whose" to the end of line 32 and to insert:
functions are transferred by virtue of section 5 of this Act to a river authority (in those provisions referred to as 'the authority') to whom none of the functions of any other river board are so transferred".
I think that it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss, at the same time, the following two Amendments, in Clause 97, page 95, lines 24 and 30.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.

Mr. Corfield: These are essentially drafting Amendments. In each of the Clauses referred to, reference is made to the areas of the respective boards and authority. These references are now no longer strictly appropriate in view of the extended provision being made for the delimitation of areas for the various and different functions of the authority. It has, therefore, become more appropriate to identify by relation to functions rather than to area. That is the purpose of the three Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 97.—(PROVISIONS WHERE RIVER AUTHORITY AREA COMPRISES TWO RIVER BOARD AREAS.)

Amendments made: In page 95, line 24, leave out from "whose" to end of line 26 and insert:
functions are transferred by virtue of section 5 of this Act to a river authority to whom the functions of another river board are also so transferred".

In line 30, leave out from "whose" to end of line 33 and insert:
functions are transferred to the same river authority as mentioned in this subsection, and 'the authority' means the river authority to whom the functions of those boards are transferred".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 100.—(PRESERVATION OF AMENITY.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 98, line 12, at the end to insert:
(2) In formulating or considering any such proposals, river authorities and the Water Resources Board and any Minister having functions under this Act, having regard to the desirability of preserving public rights of access to areas of mountain, moor, heath, down, cliff or foreshore and other places of natural beauty, shall each take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the preservation of any such rights of access.
During the Standing Committee proceedings, a number of hon. Members urged that considerations of access to areas of beauty and landscape should be one of the matters in the minds of the river authorities, of the Water Resources Board and of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking to see what could be done, and the Amendment is the result.

Miss Vickers: As one of those who, in Standing Committee, asked my right hon. Friend about amenities, I should like to take this opportunity of saying "Thank you". I was concerned with some Amendments in the Standing Committee, when I felt, in view of the very eloquent answers which I got from my right hon. Friend and also my hon. Friend, that I was lacking in knowledge of the matter and that my words were inadequate, but this is, undoubtedly, a very technical Bill.
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendment, and to say how very interesting and constructive I have found the debates on the Bill and his answers and those of my hon. Friend


during these proceedings. I thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration given to the various points which I raised. I think that this Amendment will be of great use to a great number of people. The country is getting more and more crowded and more and more built over. The fact that my right hon. Friend is to allow these amenities to be given to the general public will be very much welcomed. I hope that he will see that the various authorities concerned really understand the Amendment and will carry it out.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to be Minister of Housing and Local Government for many years to come, and that other Ministers will read what he has said, and see the implications of this Amendment, and that they are carried out in future, for I am sure that they will be for the benefit of a great many people, and yet not in any way spoil the effect of what my right hon. Friend wishes to achieve by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 111.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO RIGHTS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 106, line 2, at the end to insert:
(3) A person shall not by virtue of the last preceding section be entitled to enter or remain on land occupied by statutory water undertakers unless he complies with any reasonable requirements imposed by the undertakers for the purpose of protecting water against pollution; and any question arising under this subsection as to what requirements are reasonable shall, in case of dispute, be determined by the Minister, whose decision shall be final.
After those fair words from my fair—I mean, my honourable—Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) I have to turn to an Amendment dealing with pollution, but before doing so I would like to say that I do not think that my hon. Friend need blame herself in any way for the way in which she moved her Amendments, which I think she handled with commendable brevity and cogency, an admirable pair of qualities in any Committee. I was only sorry that on several occasions it was not possible to advise the Committee to accept what she wanted, but I think she scored on a sufficient number of occasions to justify her hard work.
This Amendment meets a point put by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who was very worried lest, in the very proper use of powers of entry on to statutory water undertakers' premises, their very high standards of cleanliness might be in a way invaded. This Amendment protects them against any pollution dangers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 116.—(VALIDITY OF DECISIONS OF MINISTER AND PROCEEDINGS RELATING THERETO.)

Amendment made: In page 110, line 23, leave out "within the meaning of" and insert "or other persons referred to in".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 120.—(CALCULATION OF APPROPRIATE PENNY RATE PRODUCT.)

Amendment made: In page 112, line 39, after "7(5)", insert "or 7(6)".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 122.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO CROWN.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 113, line 45, to leave out from "subsection" to "in" in line 46 and to insert:
no power of compulsory acquisition conferred on a river authority by or under Part VI of this Act, no other compulsory power so conferred (including any power conferred on river authorities by virtue of section 68(3) of this Act) and no power of entry or inspection conferred by or under this Part of this Act shall, except with the consent of the appropriate authority, be exercisable".
Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we might take at the same time my other two Amendments to the Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.

Sir K. Joseph: This group of Amendments clarifies the application of the Bill to Crown lands. Perhaps, before going into details, I should remind the House of the position here. The position is that although the Bill does not in its terms apply to lands occupied by the Crown, the Crown normally co-operates with the authorities in achieving the purposes of the Bill, as with town and country planning. There are one or two Amendments which need to be made


in the Bill as drafted, principally to ensure that the powers of compulsory purchase are only exercisable on the Crown with the consent of the appropriate authority. That is the main purpose of these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 114, line 12, leave out "and".

In page 114, line 16, at end insert:
and 'the appropriate authority' has the same meaning as in section 199 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, and the provisions of subsection (6) of that section as to the determination of questions shall apply for the purposes of this section".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 129.—(INLAND WATERS OWNED OR MANAGED BY BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD.)

Mr. C. Hughes: I beg to move, in page 119, line 33, to leave out from "Board" to "to".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With which I think that we might discuss the next Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: This is a complicated matter, but I shall endeavour to be brief. There was a discussion in Standing Committee on this subject.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Proceedings on the Water Resources Bill [Lords] exempted, this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Sir K. Joseph.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

Mr. C. Hughes: Subsection(1) of this Clause provides for the making of Ministerial Orders not to the inland waterways to which the Clause is to apply, but to those to which it is not to apply. This, I would think, was quite wrong. The waterways which are to enjoy preferential treatment should be clearly denned. As things stand under the wording of the Clause, they are left entirely to deduction. If the river authorities wanted to object to an Order under this Clause, they would be in serious difficulty because their objections would not be

related to the canals named in the Order, but to those not so named.
In a previous discussion on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman said that the valley or improved river canals are fewer in number than the artificial contour canals and are more easily definable by name. The argument then put forward was that full descriptions of the artificial canals to which the special provisions are to apply would be complex and difficult. He then referred to Schedule 2 of the British Transport Commission Act, 1962. This Schedule gives a list of certain canals which were due for closure. I submit that this is not a fair indication of the problem.
The navigations which are listed for closure are only parts of canals. Again some of the navigations listed in Schedule 2 of the 1962 Act are natural waterways, and it seems to me that there should be no reason to think that accurate descriptions of natural waterways would be likely to prove less difficult than descriptions of artificial canals. I would ask the Minister in the light of that—I have tried to meet the arguments that he made before—to look at this again, because I think that the Amendment would remove a considerable difficulty and the complaint which is now being made by the River Boards Association.

Sir K. Joseph: I have looked at this again since our discussion in Standing Committee. I know it seems contrary to list in this way, but we are taking the safer course. We are listing those which have identifiable names, and we are, therefore, leaving all those which cannot be definitely listed because they have no identifiable names.
I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). I accept that this is not the normal way of going about things. But, on reconsideration, I am satisfied that this is the way that is most likely to avoid any doubt. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance and not press his Amendment.

Mr. C. Hughes: This is really an Alice-in-Wonderland affair, but in view of what the Minister has just said, I will not press the Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 121, line 6, after "29" to insert "section 41".
May we take the next Amendment with this one, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.

Mr. Corfield: The Amendments are linked. They arise from the fact that Clause 129(4) provides that where before the end of the initial period the British Waterways Board enters into a contract to sell water from a canal to which the Clause relates, or, as a result of an application made before the end of the initial period, the Minister of Transport grants a consent under section 63 of the Transport Act 1962, the river authority must grant the Board a licence containing provisions as near as possible to the terms of the contract. In recognition of this, subsection (5) excludes from application to these cases the provisions of Part IV of the Bill relating to advertisements, consultations, considerations as to minimum acceptable flow, and so on, on the basis that these licences are virtually licences of right.
Following the insertion into the Bill in Committee of Clause 41 and the insertion earlier today of the new Clause with regard to fishing rights, neither of which applies to licences of right, it is necessary to extend subsection (5) to exclude those two references also. It is also necessary to exclude Clause 49(2), which does not apply to licences of right. That is the purport of the two Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 121, line 8, leave out from "subsection" to end of line 11 and insert:
and—
(a) section 49(2) of this Act shall not apply to any direction given in consequence of an appeal against the decision on such an application, and
(b) section (Application by owner of fishing rights for revocation or variation of licence) of this Act shall not apply to any licence granted in pursuance of such an application",—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 133.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made: In page 126, line 41, leave out "either" and insert "any".

In page 127, line 2, at end insert:
and
(c) so much of any channel, creek, bay estuary or arm of the sea as does not fall within the preceding paragraphs and is within any of the river authority areas".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Mr. Corfieid: I beg to move, in page 127, line 28, at the end to insert:
mortgage" includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth, and "mortgagee" shall be construed accordingly.
The Amendment simply adds the interpretation of "mortgage" and "mortgagee" for the purposes of the Bill, those terms having been used in an earlier Amendment today.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 130, line 3, at end insert:
and in circumstances such that, if no such licence were in force, tile doing of that thing would contravene a restriction imposed by section 23 or section 36 of this Act".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 134.—(AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 131, line 3, at the end to insert:
(3) The repeal by virtue of this section of section 5 of the River Boards Act 1948 shall not affect any determination under subsection (2) of that section made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before the second appointed day; and any such determination in force immediately before that' day with respect to the area of a river board shall, until superseded by any subsequent determination under section 9(2) of this Act, have effect as from that day as a determination by that Minister under the said section 9(2) with respect to the area of the river authority to whom, by virtue of section 5 of this Act, the functions of that river board relating to fisheries are transferred.
Under Section 5 of the River Boards Act, 1948, which is being re-enacted by Clause 9 of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made several determinations as to the extension of fisheries jurisdiction of river boards in tidal waters. Those existing determinations should be kept alive and the need to make a new series under Clause 9 thereby avoided.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(SEAWARD BOUNDARIES OF RIVER AUTHORITY AREAS.)

1.—(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Schedule, the seaward boundary of a river authority area shall be low-water mark on the coast of the area.

(2) In this Schedule "low-water mark" means low-water mark of ordinary spring tides.

2.—(1) Subject to any order made under this Schedule, where a river, stream or other watercourse, whether natural or artificial and whether tidal or not, or any creek in so far as it does not form part of such a watercourse, discharges into the sea, the whole of the mouth of the watercourse within a line from low-water mark at the seaward extremity of one bank to low-water mark at the seaward extremity of the other bank, or the whole of the creek within such a line, as the case may be, shall form part of a river authority area, and, if both banks are in the same river authority area, shall form part of that river authority area.

(2) In this paragraph "the sea" includes any bay, estuary or arm of the sea.

3. Where the entrance to a dock is on the coast, the whole of the dock shall form part of a river authority area, and, if both sides of the dock are in the same river authority area, shall form part of that river authority area.

4. Where paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of this Schedule applies, but the banks of the water course or creek or the sides of the dock, as the case may be, are in different river authority areas, the Minister may by order determine in which river authority area any part of the watercourse, creek or dock is to be comprised.

5.—(1) Without prejudice to the last preceding paragraph, the Minister may by order designate any tidal waters and direct that those waters, in so far as they are below low-water mark,—
(a) shall be included in a river authority area specified in the order, or
(b) shall be excluded from a river authority area so specified or (if the order so provides) shall be excluded from all the river authority areas.

(2) Any tidal waters which, by virtue of an order under this paragraph, are included in a river authority area shall by virtue of the order be excluded from any other river authority area, if apart from the order they would form part of that other area.

(3) Any tidal waters designated by an order under this paragraph shall be so designated by reference to a map; and where by any such order it is proposed to designate any tidal waters for the purpose only of excluding them from a river authority area, or from all river authority areas, those waters may, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, be designated as being all tidal waters which, in so far as they are below low-water mark, lie to seaward of a line specified in the order by reference to a map.

6. Before making an order under this Schedule, the Minister shall prepare a draft

order, and shall cause a notice to be published—
(a) stating the general effect of the order;
(b) specifying the places where copies of the draft order and of any map to which it refers may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times during the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which the notice is first published in a newspaper other than the London Gazette; and
(c) stating that any person may within that period, by notice in writing to the Minister, object to the making of the order.

7.—(1) The places to be specified in a notice in acordance with sub-paragraph (b) of the last preceding paragraph are—
(a) the principal office of every river board whose area includes any part of the relevant coast, and
(b) the office of every county or county borough council whose area includes any part of the relevant coast.

(2) In this paragraph "the relevant coast"—
(a) in relation to an order under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, means the coast which comprises the part of the river, stream or other watercourse, or the creek or dock, to which the order relates, and
(b) in relation to an order under paragraph 5 of this Schedule, means the coast adjoining the tidal waters designated in the draft order.

8. A notice under paragraph 6 of this Schedule shall be published in the London Gazette and at least once in each of two successive weeks in one or more newspapers (other than the London Gazette) circulating in the area of each river board whose principal office is required to be specified in the notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) of that paragraph.

9. If, before the end of the period of twenty- eight days referred to in paragraph 6 (b) of this Schedule, notice in writing of an objection is received by the Minister, and the objection is not withdrawn, the Minister, before making the order, shall afford to the objector an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.

10. Subject to the last preceding paragraph, the Minister may make the order either in the form of the draft or in that form as altered in such manner as he may think fit:

Provided that the order shall not be made so as to include in a river authority area any tidal waters which would have been outside all the river authority areas if the order had been made in the form of the draft order.

11. Where an order is made under this Schedule, the Minister shall cause a notice to be published—
(a) stating that the order has been made, either in the form of the draft order or with alterations specified in the notice, as the case may be, and


(b) specifying the places where copies of the order and of any map to which it refers may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times during the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of the next following paragraph.

12.—(1) The period referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of the last preceding paragraph is the period beginning with the date on which the notice is first published in a newspaper other than the London Gazette and ending with the earliest date by which the Ministers have sent to each of the river authorities concerned a map as required by section 11 (1) of this Act.

(2) The places to be specified in a notice under the last preceding paragraph in the case of an order shall be the places specified in the notice published in relation to the draft of that order in accordance with paragraph 6 of this Schedule.

(3) A notice under the last preceding paragraph shall be published in the London Gazette and at least once in each of two successive weeks in one or more newspapers (other than the London Gazette) circulating in the area of each river board whose principal office is included among the places to be specified as mentioned in the last preceding sub-paragraph.

(4) In this paragraph "river authority concerned" means a river authority established under section 3 of this Act whose area includes any part of the relevant coast (as defined by paragraph 7 (2) of this Schedule).

13.—(1)If any person desires to question the validity of an order under this Schedule on the grounds that it is not within the powers of this Act, or that any requirements of this Act have not been complied with in relation to the order, he may, within six weeks after the first publication of the notice required by paragraph 11 of this Schedule, make an application for the purpose to the High Court; and if any such application is duly made, the court, if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with any of the requirements of this Act in relation to the order, may quash the order either generally or in so far as it affects the applicant.

(2) Except as provided by the preceding sub-paragraph, the validity of an order under this Schedule shall not, either before or after the order has been made, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever.

14. Nothing in this Schedule or in any order made there under shall affect the extent of a river authority area for the purposes of the enactments relating to land drainage, fisheries or river pollution, or for the purposes of any order, scheme, regulation, award or byelaw made by virtue of any such enactment.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.
I touched upon this Schedule earlier when we discussed a series of Amend

ments to Clause 3. The object is to provide for complete identification of the seaward boundaries of the river authorities for purposes of their new functions only. This has nothing to do with the landward boundaries because those are already incorporated from the old river boards where they are completely transferred to the river authorities or where two of them become one. Nor does it affect seaward limits for fishery functions or prevention of pollution functions, all of which are unchanged by this Bill except in so far as two river boards are amalgamate.
The principle is that the seaward boundary for the new functions remains the low water mark, but where we have nevertheless a dispute on tidal waters in an estuary which divides two or more river authorities, the Minister is given power to make a definite line of demarcation. Again, where there is any question of difficulty where the boundary follows an estuary or the tidal reaches of a river the power is there to make a definite line on a map identified by a map reference.
The principle, by and large, is that the seaward boundaries will be taken from low water marks on either side of the estuary and read as parallel with the prolongation of the coast rather than of the estuary. The machinery parts of the Schedule provide for the deposit of the order, its public advertisement, opportunity to be given for objection and, where that is asked for, a hearing, publication of the finally approved order and the usual opportunity for a limited time to challenge the validity of the order in the courts.
There will be provision for not more than one such order for any river authority area and, of course, the two conservancies will not need any at all because they have the seaward boundaries. Their areas are of a purely landward character and no preliminary procedure for them is therefore proposed.
It is expected that the orders can be made and all the machinery gone through and completed within a year. Certainly there will be no question of there being any doubt whatever before a charging scheme comes into force. This fulfils an undertaking I gave in Committee. I freely admit that in the early stages we


were not aware of the difficulties because these boundaries had worked perfectly satisfactorily for the other functions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for persevering and to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey).

10.15 p.m.

Commander Pursey: This new Schedule has 110 lines and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not as simple as he might wish to make out. In order to reduce what I have to say, I will say nothing about pollution. The Schedule begins by saying:
…the seaward boundary of a river authority area shall be low-water mark on the coast of the area.
There was some difference about that previously, but now that is clear. It goes on to say that "low-water mark" means
low-water mark of ordinary spring tides
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that is a land boundary. It goes on:
…where a river, stream or other watercourse…discharges into the sea, the whole of the mouth of the watercourse within a line from low-water mark at the seaward extremity of one bank to low-water mark at the seaward extremity of the other bank, or the whole of the creek within such a tine, as the case may be, shall form part of a river authority area, and, if both banks are in the same river authority area, shall form part of that river authority area.
There we have a water boundary.
The question I want to ask is whether the River Humber is the mouth of a watercourse. If so, is the River Humber upstream of the Spurn Head—Donna Nook line in a river authority area? If so, the Minister must prepare a map under paragraph 5(3) to show the position. Where are the maps? In Standing Committee the Minister said that the Humber was outwith the Bill.
Paragraph 5(2) states:
Any tidal waters which…are included in a river authority area shall by virtue of the order be excluded from any other river authority area…
The paragraph goes on to deal with maps. If we could put this into football parlance, it looks as though we have a football pitch with two centre lines. Whichever side one is on, it is

of interest to know where the centre line is.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would be kind enough to clear up that point because paragraph 2(2) says:
In this paragraph 'the sea' includes any bay, estuary or arm of the sea".
We first have a reference to a water course and for the Humber this could be anywhere out into the North Sea, because there is no line of delimitation, and then we get the reference to the sea including any bay, or estuary, or arm of the sea. How far does the estuary of the Humber go upstream?

An Hon. Member: Where is the Humber?

Commander Pursey: I can assure hon. Members that Standing Committee F would not ask that question.
Paragraph 5(2) says:
Any tidal waters which…are included in a river authority area shall by virtue of the order be excluded from any other river authority area…
The more one studies this, the more one is driven to conclude that the Minister is to have more powers than Moses had with the divergence of water in Biblical times.
If a river authority is excluded from any other river authority, the question then arises, what happens where an estuary is concerned with two river authorities? Let me take this a stage further to get the River Humber into the picture. What happens when we have an estuary which is concerned with three river authorities? I ask this because I can see nothing in this new Schedule about that.
The consequences are that although we started in Committee with one or more Ministers arguing that the River Humber was in the Bill, we arrived at the stage when the Minister admitted that the River Humber was not in the Bill, and the question which now arises is, is the River Humber in the Bill and, if it is not, has the Minister authority to put it in?
I have discussed this with a number of people and they agree that the Minister is taking power by which he can take into the Bill an estuary which goes well out into the North Sea, and, alternatively, in the river authority


direction he can take in estuaries which go miles inland. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give us a clear-cut statement with regard to the River Humber, no doubt the explanation would apply to other estuaries which are similarly placed.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Paragraph 5(3) of the new Schedule refers to.
Any tidal waters designated by an order under this paragraph shall be so designated by reference to a map;…
I know that it is rather late in the day to make this recommendation to my hon. Friend, but if he could manage to carry it out in any directions that he gives to river authorities so much the better. I think it is desirable that the scale of the map should be defined, because it may be of fairly critical importance whether a point from which brackish water is abstracted is, or alternatively is not, within a river authority area, and if a small-scale map, which is often employed with a fairly thick line superimposed on it by a china graph pencil, is what is referred to when the paragraph talks about being
so designated by reference to a map
ambiguity, expense, and a lot of trouble may arise there from.
That concludes the observations that I wanted to make. It is important that the scale of the maps should be uniformly known and, if possible, laid down by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Temple: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing in this new Schedule. I confess that I was rather a pest in Standing Committee F in pressing this point.
I have had a message from the River Boards Association saying that in principle it welcomes this new Schedule. I have a number of small points to make which can only be dealt with in a matter of detail, and I shall, with permission of the House, send those to my right hon. Friend so that he can consider them.
On a matter of principle concerning this new Schedule, we have come to a rather desperate state of affairs with regard to river authority areas. We now have four different areas of a river authority. I cannot regard this as satisfactory. I regard it as immensely confusing to the ordinary layman to have four different areas of a river authority

for four different purposes, and I think that we would have got over many of the difficulties expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey) if we had accepted as the seaward boundary of river authority areas the limits of territorial water.
That is the limit for fishery purposes, and there would have been no question of a low waiter mark, which can itself be a moving mark. The low-water mark can be in one place in one year and in another in another year because the tidal effect on the shingle bank can move the low water mark here and there. Therefore, any line which is fixed by reference to the low-water mark cannot be wholly satisfactory and determinate for all time. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made the point about the exact delimitation of these matters. It is most important that they should be precisely laid down with reference to a very large scale map.
My right hon. Friend might have been well advised to have taken yet another boundary of river authority areas, that laid down in. the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act, 1960. The exact position all round the coasts is in the Schedule to that Act. It would have saved the Standing Committee and the House of commons a great deal of trouble, and I believe that in the future it would save everybody in river authority circles a great deal of confusion, if we had not had to initiate a fresh area for a river authority in this legislation.
Apart from these criticisms, I think that my right hon. Friend has got over the difficulties which confronted us all by introducing this Schedule. I am very relieved to hear that the new seaward boundary will be brought into effect before the first appointed day under the Bill when enacted.

Mr. Corfield: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that the object is to designate these boundaries by an eight-figure map reference. I assure him that it is possible to plot From that to within a matter of inches. When I was young I was not able to get away for the weekend until I did it, and I became very good at it. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), I am informed that there would be considerable difficulties in making the boundaries of controlled waters under the Pollution Act the boundaries for the purposes of conservation. I cannot see what we gain on the three mile limit he suggests, because we are still up against the difficulty of what is the three mile limit at one of the wider estuaries, such as the Humber. This is the crux of the matter.
I assure the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) that the whole purpose is to ensure that there will not be two centre lines. If the Minister fixes a line, it could be inside the line which would result from the application of sub-paragraphs (1) and (3), thus excluding some of the tidal water, or it could be outside it. The whole purpose of the new

Schedule is to enable the Minister to fix a line by reference to a map and with the use of eight figure map references so that there shall be no doubt whatever. I do not think that the Humber has moved since the Committee Stage and it is still outside any river authority area.
Fixing the inland extremity of the Humber will be done under paragraph 5 of the Schedule. As to dividing river authority areas one from another if they border on an estuary—I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is again thinking of the Humber—paragraph 4 provides for the Minister to provide a line by reference to a map. The whole object is to ensure that there shall be no doubt, and everybody will know clearly whether they are in or whether they are out and if they are in, which area they are in.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.—(RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

10.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 133, to leave out lines 7 to 9 and to insert:

26
The Lancashire River Authority
The Lancashire River Board area.


27
The Cumberland River Authority.
The Cumberland River Board area.

This Amendment is tabled in fulfilment of an undertaking given by me in Committee: to leave the river board areas in the North-West of the country as they are and to create for each one of them—namely, Lancashire and Cumberland—a river authority to match the present river board area.

This was in response to the strong local feeling in the area as evidenced particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who supported him. As the House will remember, I did not conceal from the Committee my views on the subject: that the Bill as drafted was correct in merging these two areas in the one river authority. However, in response to the strong local feeling, and recognising the strength of it, the Government undertook to table this Amendment.

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: I do not wish to oppose the Amendment. While I would not be in order in raking over the controversy which has raged in connection with another matter with which the Schedule is concerned, at Nos. 1 and 2, does my right hon. Friend consider that he has been entirely consistent? As I say, while I do not wish to go over the controversy again, I remind my right hon. Friend of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) in Committee and the discussion in another place.
I understood, from correspondence and conversations which I and other hon. Members had—hon Members on both sides of the House—that it was necessary, for technical reasons, that, regardless of local control, these boards had to be at least as big as one stretching from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Whitby. My right hon. Friend has now given way. He tells us that he has done so reluctantly. I hope he will not think that there is any

lack of strength in feeling on the right side of the Pennines about the size of the river boards. Does my right hon. Friend consider that he is being consistent? Before he replies, I would like to pay tribute to the courtesy that he and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have shown in correspondence and conversation with me over many months on this matter.

Mr. Edward Milne: Many hon. Members will wish to thank the Minister for leaving these two river authorities as they were prior to the introduction of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been considerable discussion on this topic. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he has replied, both in the House and in Committee, to questions affecting the areas with which hon. Members have been concerned. Can some consideration be given to the future re-division of certain areas in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's, powers under the Bill?

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) and by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne). I do not wish to oppose the Amendment in any way, but I find it very difficult to appreciate the consistency between this Amendment and what was said by my right hon. Friend in the Standing Committee about the necessity for and expense of hydrologists and scientists for these authorities. I do not see how my right hon. Friend's Committee stage arguments succeed if we accept this Amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the Standing Committee I had no constituency interest in the matter at all, and I am glad that the Minister has in this case acceded to the request then made. I think that the members of the Committee may feel that though my right hon. Friend may not have been completely consistent in so doing, the case that has been put has merit even greater than the merit of consistency.

Sir K. Joseph: I appreciate the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), which I shall adopt. I appreciate also the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton). I


cannot pretend that this Amendment is consistent. The fact is that, on the technological merits, the organisational merits, the hydrological merits and the financial merits, I believe the river authority areas in the Bill are the correct reconciliation of the interests of the new and of the transferred functions of the existing authorities.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have become experts during this Session in the delicate process of merging and amalgamating different bodies—sometimes they are boroughs, sometimes they are urban districts, sometimes river boards. We have come to detect the difference between the objections raised honourably, sincerely and vigorously by members and, in some cases, by officials, and those that arise passionately from the populace.
We believe that in the case of the north-west of England, the people of the Lake District—the people of the Lake District, and not only the members and officials of the river boards concerned—genuinely believe—wrong-headedly, I am sure—that the amalgamating of the river board areas concerned would, to some extent, have jeopardised the beauty of their priceless heritage. Since the Lake District is a unique asset of the country, the Government thought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has suggested, that acceptance of this point of view was of higher merit than consistency. That is the only reason why, in this case, we have been inconsistent, and I hope that the House will accept the explanation.

Mr. Denis Howell: I accept and welcome the delightful new doctrine announced by the Minister that mergers should be stopped if there is a genuine emergence of feeling from the population and, as is undoubtedly the case in London in respect of the London Government Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman now give an undertaking that he will take that wretched Bill away, and that we shall hear no more about it?

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(ADAPTATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN CONSEQUENCE OF TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.)

Mr. Speaker: I indicated at an earlier stage that I would be willing to accept

a manuscript Amendment if the Minister did not desire to move the Amendment in page 133, line 17, in the form in which it appears on the Notice Paper.

Sir K. Joseph: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Amendment made: In page 133, line 17, leave out from "authority" to "and" in line 20, and insert:
in relation to which the area of that river board is specified or is one of those specified in the third column of Schedule 1 of this Act."—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(PROVISIONS AS TO RIVER AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 140, line 28, at the end to insert:
(4) Without prejudice to the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section 76 (which limits the disabilities imposed by that section), that section shall not by virtue of this paragraph
apply—
(a) to any interest which a member of a river authority or committee may have in the preparation or revision of a charging scheme or in the raising of any drainage rates or the levying of any general or special drainage charges, or
(b) to any interest in any other matter which such a member may have as the holder of, or as an applicant or prospective applicant for, a licence under this Act, where it is an interest which he has in common with all other holders of, or applicants or prospective applicants for, such licences, or in common with all other persons belonging to a class of such holders, applicants or prospective applicants.
This Amendment adds a new sub-paragraph to the Schedule with a view to modifying the reference to Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933. It was pointed out rather late in the day that if Section 76 was applied rigidly to river authorities the people appointed to river authorities specifically to give expert advice might well be ruled out at precisely the time when their expert advice was needed. In an attempt to avoid that and at the same time preserve the general principle that people should declare their interest and not vote where that interest was involved we have retained Section 76 and have added the qualifying provisions of sub-paragraph (4, a and b). I hope and believe that they meet the needs of the case and I am grateful to the representatives of several bodies who came to see us a few days ago and pointed out the difficulties which might be created.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Amendment entirely meets the representations which the National Farmers' Union made very recently to my right hon. Friend and they have asked me to express their gratitude to him for meeting their representations so completely.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, in page 142, line 35, after "contribute", to insert:
or by any person or body (other than a person or body convening it in the course of his or their trade or business or a body of which the objects are wholly or partly political)".
At the same time it might be convenient to discuss Amendment 116, in line 26, at end insert:
(c) of such other associations, being associations formed for purposes which include consultation and discussion of matters connected with the performance of any of the functions of river authorities.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Temple: The Minister throughout discussions on the Bill has impressed on everybody concerned the very great importance of the quality of river authority members. Having accepted that point, it is only fair to treat river authority members as being grown-up persons and not needing to be in children's harness. All I seek in the Amendment is to give those members power to judge for themselves whether they pay to fellow-members expenses to attend a certain type of conference or pay subscriptions to any associated or related bodies with, which they are in contact.
It is very significant that in another place only this evening the principle of this Amendment has been accepted in Clause 1 (1, a) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill and that Bill has completed all its stages in another place. It would seem that if my right hon. Friend was thinking of resisting the Amendment earlier in the day he might be encouraged by what has just taken place in another place to have a quick change of mind and to give river authorities these powers.
It is only reasonable that river authorities should be the judge in these cases of which conferences their members should be able to attend. The powers are only the same powers that

local authorities have at present. Local authorities are usually reckoned to be in status on a par with and certainly not above river authorities. Therefore, I hope that whoever replies will be able to advise the House that the two Amendments should be accepted.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). I do not want to enter into an argument with him whether the future river authorities will be more or less important than other bodies. I entirely agree with him that the river authorities will have extremely important functions, but they will be on a limited scale and of a limited nature compared with the local authorities with their wide powers and wide responsibilities.
May I draw attention to the fact that in Standing Committee we enlarged the powers of the authorities and added an extra sub-paragraph to paragraph 26 which gives a river authority power to make contributions towards the expanses of members who attend anything within the sphere of action of the authority. I think that my hon. Friend is trying to go a little too far and to give too much. He is trying to extend the provision too far in that direction. I ask him seriously to consider whether it is not much better to leave things as they are and to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: That is a real disappointment. I am disappointed at the Government's attitude. I should have thought that we could agree that river authorities were equal in status to local authorities, but my hon. Friend does not agree, and I must, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4.—(ORDERS ALTERING RIVER AUTHORITY AREAS.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 146, line 28 after "not" to insert:
either before or after the order has been made.
This is a drafting Amendment to make more precise the limit on the challenging in the courts of the validity of orders altering the area of a river authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6.—(PROCEDURE RELATING TO STATEMENTS OF MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE FLOWS, AND TO CERTAIN ORDERS AND SCHEMES.)

Amendment made: In page 147, line 47 after "to" to insert "any".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 148, line 2 to leave out "and" and to insert:
(f) any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority having functions in relation to any other inland water, where it appears to the river authority that changes in the flow of an inland water to which the draft statement relates may affect the flow of that other inland water, or, if that other inland water is a tidal water and there is no such navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority, the Minister of Transport.
This Amendment was discussed with an Amendment in page 20, line 16. It Ls parallel with it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 148, line 2 at the end to insert:
(f) every person who has given notice to the river authority requesting them to notify him of action taken in connection with the determination of a minimum acceptable flow for an inland water to which the draft statement relates, and, if the river authority have required him to pay a reasonable charge for being so notified, has paid that charge; and
This Amendment was taken in connection with Amendments to Gause 25.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 148, line 26, after "paragraph" to insert "notice in writing of".
This Amendment alters the reading of paragraph 8 of the Schedule in such a way that "notice in writing of" an objection has to be received by the Minister—not merely "an objection"—to the draft statement of a minimum acceptable flow. It makes it clear that objections must be lodged in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 149, line 25, after "paragraph" to insert "notice in writing of".
This is a similar Amendment to a later stage of the same Schedule requiring an objection to be in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 150, line 7 after "in" to insert "paragraph 4 (g) and".
This Amendment was taken with a group of Amendments in Clause 25.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 151, line 9, to leave out from "authority" to "as" in line 11 and to insert:
required by this Act to be consulted before the preparation of the draft statement or the submission of the proposals",
May we take with this Amendment that in line 16, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.

Sir K. Joseph: This pair of Amendments provide for joint action by Ministers in certain cases where the Minister of Transport as well as the Minister of Housing and Local Government is involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 151, line 16, to leave out from "any" to "or" in line 17 and insert:
inland water to which the draft statement relates or the proposals relate, as the case may be".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 7.—(ORDERS AUTHORISING EXECUTION OF WORKS.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 153, line 14, after "paragraph" to insert "notice in writing of".
This Amendment merely requires objection to be made in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 153, line 35, at the end, to insert:
and subsections (5) to (7) of section 46 of this Act shall have effect in relation to compensation payable by virtue of this paragraph as they have effect in relation to compensation payable under that section".
This Amendment defines further the compensation to be paid under certain compulsory purchase powers.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9.—(ORDERS TRANSFERRING FUNCTIONS OR PROPERTY OF OTHER AUTHORITIES AND UNDERTAKINGS.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 158, line 50, after "not" to insert:
either before or after the order has been made".


This Amendment is identical in terms with that to Schedule 4 and makes more precise the limitation on challenging the validity of orders in the courts. It also has the merit of being the last Amendment, and I am extremely happy to move it.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Corfield.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. C. Hughes: We have come to the end of our lengthy proceedings on this important Bill, and I should like to take this final opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government, his Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the way in which they have dealt with all the criticisms that have been laid before them, and, with one unhappy Celtic exception, tried to meet our requests for Amendments of substance. For that reason, apart from being watered clown, the Bill is better than it was when we started upon it over two months ago.
One important example of the improvements that I have in mind is the new provisions whereby the Water Resources Board has been given additional powers and the powers of the river authorities in relation to the prevention of pollution have been strengthened. There have been other important improvements in response to undertakings given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) who, unfortunately, is not in his place but has returned to the Humber, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). Hon. Members, including hon. Members opposite, who were in Standing Committee F have, if I may say so, worked extremely hard on what has been a long and very complicated Bill.
It has also taught me a great deal about the water industry and water conservation. It is the hope, I am certain, of all hon. Members that the long-term effects of this Bill will be substantial and

beneficial. A national plan for water conservation and distribution is at last in sight. On behalf of the Opposition, I express the hope that the Water Resources Board and the river authorities will be successful in their formidable new task.
Many of us wish that the Water Resources Board could have had a wider range of functions and increased powers. But, even so, the Board as it will be under the Bill will have vital tasks to perform in its relationship with the Minister and the river authorities and in the collection of hydrological data. We shall be receiving reports from the Water Resources Board as we receive reports from the electricity, coal and gas industries. I hope that it will be possible, in due course, for the House to debate the annual report of the Water Resources Board.
The river authorities will have greatly extended powers and responsibilities. We are giving them exacting work of vital importance to the nation. The success or failure of the Bill ultimately depends on the river authorities. We all hope and believe that they will be equal to the task.
Upon the river authorities there will be representatives of various interests, local government, industry, agriculture, navigation, and so on, and all will advance the views of their respective concerns, but it is the wish of the House that they will work always as a team in the national interest, putting forward their own cases but, in the final analysis, placing the interests of the nation first. The more efficiently they work, the less interference they may expect from the Water Resources Board and from the Minister.
With the Bill, the river authorities enter the field of really big business. It is important for Parliament to realise this consequence of what it is doing. The construction of reservoirs and the disposal of vast quanities of water is pretty big business. If a river authority, for example, has three or four dams costing £4 million each and it is exporting between 60 and 100 million gallons of water per day at, say 1½d. or 2d. per 1,000 gallons—the notional figures given by Ministers in another place and in this House—that is a lot of money and an awful lot of water. It gives some measure


of the task upon which the river authorities are embarking.
The river authorities have able and hard-working officials, and they will need many more during the next few years. We all hope that they will be able to recruit them on both the technical and scientific side and on the administrative side. Any able young man today who is interested in engineering or techno-logy and who is uncertain of his career for the future might well consider the water industry, an industry which will need many more able young men during the next quarter of a century. There will be ample scope and opportunity for them in it.
Naturally, there are still some apprehensions abroad as to the possible effects of the Bill. Industries which are dependent upon the use of large quantities of water—the textile industry, the chemical industry, the paper making industry, the hosiery and dyeing industry, for example—all feel that the new charging schemes may be injurious to them, and their views were, throughout our Committee stages, well and clearly put by hon. Members on both sides. We all understand these fears and we sympathise with them, but I do not think that they will be justified. I think that the calculations given by the Minister as to future needs are near the mark.
For the water industry, the next few years will be a period of research and hard work. It will, obviously, be some time before the Bill makes its impact felt, but I have no doubt that it marks a significant step forward and a necessary one. I hope that it will more than justify our expectations.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: I was not privileged to be selected to serve on the Committee stage of this immensely important and imaginative Measure. Perhaps, therefore, on Third Reading it may be appropriate if I am permitted to voice my view, which is probably shared by many other hon. Members on both sides who were not on the Standing Committee but who yet not only took a deep interest in the passage of the Bill but had local and regional axes to grind.
Over a long period, I, for one, had many consultations and arguments with my right hon. Friend the Minister and

my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to express, on my behalf, and I believe that it will be echoed by hon. Members on all sides, my gratitude for the courtesy and patience with which they dealt with our local grumbles.
I remain of the opinion that in one respect in the Bill, and in one respect only, my right hon. Friend is entirely wrongheaded. He knows in which respect that is, and so does the House. I do not believe that it is possible to persuade a Green Howard or a Durham Light Infantryman that he shall be called a Northumbrian. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having got through all its stages Clause 10 of the Bill, which gives him power to have second thoughts, and I trust that in the light of experience he will find that in this respect, and in this respect only, he was wrong and I was right.
I am, however, sincere in my gratitude to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the courtesy and patience with which they have dealt with my nattering over a great many months.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: Like other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. G Hughes), I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for their great courtesy and consideration. I say this particularly on behalf of the British Waterworks Association, on whose behalf I have been seemingly making a never-ending number of speeches. The Association is grateful for the way in which the Minister and his officials have considered what it has said.
For the first time in the long passage of the Bill, I should like now to make a speech on my own behalf, because I want to refer to the Bill and the situation that we now have in the water industry concerning it. I cannot entirely share the optimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey about the Water Resources Board. I entirely agree that this Measure takes us a long way, and as far as it goes I certainly welcome it, but the Water Resources Board will be nothing nearly as important a body as the central water authority for the country should be.
Indeed, when we were dealing this afternoon with Welsh affairs, the Minister gave the game away, because it was clear from what we were told that the Water Resources Board, which is to be the central authority, far from having teeth and being the sort of central authority that we on this side would like to see, will be relegated to the rôle of a technical or advisory body.
What the country needs above all else is a grid system for water, in the same way that we have grid systems for electricity and gas. The Water Resources Board operating under the Bill has no authority at all to transfer water from one area of the country to another in times of drought and need. Consequently there will still continue the sort of difficulties of which I have personal experience, as many hon. Members have, in those odd summers when we have fine weather and a drought—a water shortage in, say, Cornwall, at a time when holidaymakers are pouring in. The needs of such people at such a time will not be met.
Here we have a major Measure dealing with the water industry, and one would have thought that, with all this reorganisation, we should have met that position, that we should have had a new type of authority, and that, in consequence, droughts would have been things of the past. It is a matter of great regret to me, and, I hope, to other hon. Members, that we still have not that type of authority. That is why I think that, while the pattern can be reasonably firm in future, there will have to be some amending legislation in the not too distant future, because now, at the end of the day, with the passing of this Bill and the establishment of this new machinery, it does not mean the end of droughts in this country, it does not mean this is the end of water shortage. None of us can say it does.
The Water Resources Board ought to be given far more authority than it has. It ought to be given power to give instructions to the river authorities, to determine the pattern of water services in this country, and certainly power to move water from one part of the country to another, under a grid system or some similar system. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Minister has not gone as far as that.
It seems to me that what the Minister has done is this. He has said, quite rightly, that the problems of water conservation and supply have got to be dealt with; they have not been adequately dealt with in the past; and they probably ought to be divorced from the problem of distribution, which is in the proper field of local authorities and water companies. But having said that, he has come to the conclusion that he thinks—I may be wrong here—that this solution of the problem is too socialistic, and he has been afraid to go the whole hog and to meet the whole of the situation. The consumption of water in this country is increasing at such a rate, so rapidly, that either he or his successors sooner or later—and, in my judgment, much sooner rather than much later—will have to take this step.
Secondly, just a word about disposal. It still seems to me to be absolutely absurd that at the end of the day we still rather ridiculously have not got not only the collection and use and supply but also the disposal of water all concentrated in one industry and authority as it ought to be. It is wasteful administratively to have separate disposal organisations, as distinct from the collection and supply of water. It is not only wasteful economically. It leads to some situations such as I disclosed in Committee, that we find at one end of the scale local authorities preparing to supply large quantities of water but not preparing to dispose of them, and this inevitably means we get disposal by very unsatisfactory methods—and disposal of sewage into rivers and the seas. The whole of the water industry needs centralisation, and it ought to be under one organisation.
The third question is, will this Bill work? Will this new pattern work? We hope it will, but in the industry there is a great number of doubts. For example, the new river authorities, which, many of us remember the Minister said this afternoon, are the hub of the whole Bill, have no responsibility laid upon them at all by this Bill in respect of seeking to promote new sources of water supply. All that they are going to do is take over, manage and regulate sources already in existence. They will not have any regard to the tremendous new demands and no


means of assessing the increase in demand for water, and to that extent the question arises: Will it work?
We cannot escape the fact that many of the water undertakings and responsible people within the industry have grave doubts about the financing of the new system which the Bill imposes, and particularly with regard to the supply of capital. We had a detailed discussion about this in Committee, and I do not want to go over it all again, but would make the point that the places in this country where water is most plentiful, such as Wales, are the very places where the population is least plentiful and where the amount of capital is least plentiful, and there is no grid system and they have not the opportunity of transferring the water from their area to other areas where it would be welcomed and where it could be used.
I know that all sorts of information has been given to us about the possibilities of larger areas and what that might mean, but I have not been convinced by these statements, and I can tell the Minister that many people in the industry, having looked at the little debate that we had in Committee and at what we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary, still have very great perturbation about how the financial side will work.
Those are difficulties which I still see at the end of the day, but, having made these points, I still readily concede to the Minister that the position is very much better than it has been hitherto. We certainly hope that our doubts will prove to be unfounded, and we offer him our congratulations on the passage of the Bill.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Temple: The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) was right when he said that this is now a better Bill than when it started. It is certainly a much bigger Bill, and if we had had another stage, perhaps we might have added another 20 pages to it! I cannot help saying that I am glad this is its last stage.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the delightful way in which he has handled the proceedings. Some years ago I said that my right hon. Friend

now the Home Secretary was the greatest legislator in local government since Neville Chamberlain. If my right hon. Friend goes on the way he has started this Session, he will eclipse even my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because he has dealt with a great weight of legislation, and handled it most effectively.
The hon. Member for Anglesey congratulated many people inside this House and connected with the House. I should like to add my congratulation to those national bodies and the members who serve on them who have done so much work outside this House. If it had not been for the work of the River Boards Association, the Council of the Federation of British Industries, the fishery interests and others, we should never have known of some of the pitfalls into which we might have fallen in this Measure. It is only right that we should pay a very sincere tribute to those men and women who give up a great deal of their time voluntarily to serve on the national committees of these organisations, without which this legislation would have been impossible.
I believe that the Bill is a great step forward in our water legislation. I believe that, administratively, it will be a pretty good headache for the river authorities of the future. This I have always maintained.
I should like, therefore, to wish the river authorities every possible success in the administration of the Measure, which I believe will be for the benefit of everybody connected with our water.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Cole: I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on seeing the happy conclusion of the Bill, which is so large. It is never a small feat to get through 135 Clauses and 13 Schedules, and particularly is that a great feat when the Bill deals with a material such as water in which there is such a great multiplicity of interests. With that, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in adding my thanks and congratulations to all those bodies outside the House who have done so much to assist hon. Members and, I am sure, in some instances the Ministry itself, in keeping to the right path in this most complex matter.
Water is something rather like air. Most of the time we take it for granted. We cannot always do that, however, because, although we never run short of air, we do tend to run short of water in some places. It has been said that the last element but one—the last is air—that brings an end to a planet is shortage of water. With the growing development of the country, and particular areas, I perceive that the supply of water will become an ever-increasing problem. This Bill comes none too soon and is very much needed. We may well need more legislation of this kind in the years ahead to harness our most natural and vital resources for our future living.
I want also to echo, from my own knowledge and from what has been brought to my notice, what the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) said about the question of charges to industry for consumption of water. I know large firms which are somewhat perturbed about the increased charges they may have to pay, running in some cases into hundreds of thousands of pounds. I hope that my right hon. Friend, with his influence in setting up these authorities and the Board, will bring this uncertainty, which is the worst of all evils, to an end as soon as possible so that they will know exactly where they stand and can budget accordingly. That is as much as I can ask him to do at this stage, but I hope that this worry about charging will soon be resolved.
There is also the question of the interests of agriculture, horticulture and fishing, about which I have written to my right hon. Friend. I hope that, in appointing the members of the Board and the authorities, he will have regard to agricultural interests, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will, with particular reference to horticulture, and that both Ministers will see that there is a proper representation of the fishing interests—and I do not mean only the commercial interests.
I am thinking also of those who believe that man is better at doing his vital work by having a pastime which gives him proper solace and relaxation. My right hon. Friend has given an earnest of this earlier today by introducing the Clause to protect fishing rights before the minimum flow of a river is settled.

I hope that this is an earnest of things to come.
I have had representations from a fishing club in my constituency—the Leighton Buzzard Angling Club—which is a member of the Great Ouse Fishery Consultative Association. Although it is keen on the Bill, it is concerned that the fisherman shall not lose his means of obtaining relaxation in this way.
With these points, to which I am sure my right hon. Friend will give attention, I wish this Bill well. I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends on both sides when I wish the Board well for the future. It will need our good will and good wishes. Those good wishes go to the river authorities as well, for it will be their job to see that the Bill works in their areas. I hope that it will do a lot of good in the immediate future. I still believe we may need more legislation in the years to come, but I reiterate my congratulations to my right hon. Friend. He must be a very satisfied and happy man tonight.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: My contribution tonight will be short. There is no doubt that this Bill in its improved form will have an impact on many sections of the community. During the Second Reading debate I listed some of the fears of the smaller firms, let alone the big ones, particularly those in my constituency, and the company in which I am interested, which will be using water and will be affected by this Bill. Sooner or later water will become a scarce commodity, and without the Bill we as a nation would have found it difficult to do much about such a situation.
In the early stages of this Bill various industries were concerned about the water rights—their riparian rights—which they had had for centuries. Earlier this evening I referred to them as being part of the assets of a company, and in Committee I expressed the point of view of industry. But these rights will be worthless unless something can be done to ensure that there is an adequate minimum flow of water, and I am sure that the Bill will give industries, and particularly those which have many fears, some things which they would not have had without it.
It is also reasonable to say that if industry has this guarantee, this underwriting, it should pay for it. During our discussions in Committee upstairs we discovered that some sections of industry found it hard to accept this fact, but I think we are beginning to realise that water is a scarce commodity which has to be paid for.
In conclusion, I thank my right hon. Friend and the two Joint Parliamentary Secretaries for the courteous way in which they have handled the many Amendments that I put forward. I congratulate them on the skill with which they conceded very little, but I thank them for at least clearing up the points that I raised. I congratulate them on piloting through a difficult Bill which I regard as an important milestone in our history.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When Black Rod knocks on the door of the Chamber to summon us to another place to hear the Royal Assent to this Bill, I hope that we shall not keep him waiting too long because this is a very necessary Bill indeed. The necessity for it is more obvious in some parts of the country than in others. Indeed, in my part of the country there is no obvious shortage of water at the moment.
The long list of Amendments which we have dealt with today is nothing compared with the Amendments that were dealt with in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) rightly said that not many Amendments were accepted by the Committee, but in many cases the tabling of them fulfilled a useful function, because this is a complex Bill, and in replying to the Amendments my right hon. Friend and his colleagues pointed out in many cases that the things which the Amendments sought to embody in the Bill were already in it.
Tedious as the task might be, I recommend industrialists and members of the new river authorities to saddle themselves with the task of reading the reports of our proceedings in Committee upstairs, because by so doing they will in many cases discover how it is intended that the Bill should function. Many of us who read the Bill through

in considerable detail when it was first published had doubts about various aspects of it, and it was not until my right hon. Friend and his colleagues explained them that we realised that our anxieties were well covered by certain Clauses.
This is particularly important because in many cases my right hon. Friend gave us assurances on matters which do not come within his normal powers of direction, but they were assurances about the manner in which the river authorities themselves would exercise the powers conferred on them under this Bill. It is particularly important that the river authorities should familiarise themselves with the assurances and undertakings given about the manner in which it is intended that their powers should be exercised.
I want to refer again to the subject of costs and ask that my right hon. Friend, when considering schedules of charges put to him, should bear in mind the advisability of consulting my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, particularly in the case of industries whose competition is primarily not other water-using industries in the United Kingdom but water-using industries in countries which do not have to pay a gallon age charge on that important raw material. This is all the more important as some industries become all the more vulnerable with the reduction in E.F.T.A. duties and in the Kennedy Round.
I want to thank my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the enormous amount of work which they must have put in before Committee meetings to prepare themselves for the very long list of Amendments and for the informative way in which they have replied to points raised. I want to pay tribute also to the amount of work put in, not only by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) representing the Opposition, because this has not been a political Bill, but also by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who has saved a very considerable amount of trouble which could


have overtaken the Bill once it were enacted, particularly from the point of view of demarcation limits.
With those words, I give the Bill a very ready welcome and express the hope that many of the fears which have been voiced will prove groundless.

Sir K. Joseph: In this most unaccustomed atmosphere I rise to acknowledge the courteous words that have been spoken and to say on my part a heartfelt word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has been a most stalwart and sturdy help at all times during the Bill. I want also to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his patience in sitting for long stretches and then intervening effectively on his special subjects.
I should like to say on behalf of us all how much the Committee benefited from the work of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), whose speech this evening said all the things I might have wanted to say and said them eloquently and crisply. I hope that his speech will be widely read as an expression of all our expectations of what the Bill may hope to achieve.
The Committee as a whole has been extraordinarily hard-working, most constructive, extremely patient but, I regret to say, also extremely persistent, and as a result a very large number of concessions have been wrung from the Government by a most unfortunate concatenation of Opposition and Government back benchers working in unholy harmony to force the Government's hand from time to time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who has been particularly diligent throughout the Bill, that as a result of the Committee's work the Bill is probably considerably better than when it came here. I think we should also spare a thought for the labours of another place, because they themselves scrutinised the Bill very thoroughly indeed and the Amendments they made add up very nearly to as many as we have made.
At the risk of being invidious, I should like particularly to thank the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for a number of short

and valuable interventions in Committee which represented a good deal of behind-the-scenes work to study the subjects. I want to thank also my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and my hon. Friends the Members for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), Westmorland (Mr. Vane), Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), Abingdon (Mr. Neave), Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), all of whom, in combination with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester, were most invaluable members of the Committee. All ex-members of the Committee would also like to pay a word of tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), who as Chairman handled the Committee most helpfully.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester has given me far too much praise. The great feature of Neville Chamberlain's Ministry was that he not only got the Bills through but practically drafted and invented them. I can take absolutely no credit on that score because it was my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary who conceived the urgent importance of this Measure and it was Professor Proudman and his Committee who gave us the outlines on which to work. I am also grateful for the kind words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton.
As for the hon. Member for Small Heath, I can insult him the more easily if he will step inside the Bar of the Chamber. I have a high respect for the hon. Member but I thought that his speech this evening was packed with all the errors which I thought we had got out of him in Committee. If ever a government was so misguided as to strengthen the Water Resources Bill to by-pass Parliament and the Minister alike, any such government would find the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath in his place fighting hard for the rights of the statutory water undertakers.
There remain three or four obligations for me to discharge; undertakings I gave in Committee. First, on the question of private Bill procedure. This Bill


does not touch in any way the right to proceed by way of private Bill procedure. However, now that we are setting up a new mechanism for the management of water, the Government of the day are bound to feel that any sponsors of such private legislation would need to consult the river authorities concerned, and the Water Resources Board if that is relevant, and to seek their agreement before private legislation is presented. Though I cannot bind my successors, I think it most unlikely that any successor would look with favour on the sponsors of a private Bill if they had not managed to agree with the river authorities and the Board before coming to the House. Nevertheless, I repeat that the scope for Parliamentary private Bill procedure, both to propose and oppose water Measures, remains unaltered.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester pressed me hard in Committee about the need for alternate members of the river authorities. I undertook to consult widely about the feeling outside the House. Such consultation was carried out and it has revealed no strong support for the proposition. Certain bodies supported it, but not strongly. The objections were explained in Committee and I have not tabled an Amendment on this subject.
The question of the attitude to the Bill of industry was mentioned tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South. We are, by the Bill, inviting industry to emerge from the state of hydrological self-help which has obtained up to now. We are inviting it to enter with confidence into the more formal set-up under the Bill, by which, we believe, it will more surely and efficiently and, in the end, far more economically get the increasing quantities of water it will need.
I regard it as the duty of my Department—and I hope that it will also be the duty of the Water Resources Board and river authorities—to get to know the needs of industry, to become familiar with the trends of industry so that they may command the confidence of industry in the same way as the river boards have commanded the confidence of the agricultural and statutory water

undertaking interests. I expect that the Water Resources Board will become the focal point of water knowledge and plans and, even wider than industry, of which I have been speaking, I expect the Board to make itself accessible to all those whose needs or problems are on a substantial scale.
In this effort to pick up the threads remaining, I must refer to spray irrigation. We have taken a somewhat draconic attitude to this subject.
We have written into the Bill a power of control over those who start abstracting for spray irrigation before the second appointed day. We have written into the Bill a power for river authorities to limit spray irrigation when there is a water shortage. It is only fair to the farmers and horticulturists who are increasingly turning to spray irrigation to express our hope—and it must be only a hope since it is not in the Bill—that river authorities and the Water Resources Board will emphasise to other abstractors of water that they should exercise all practicable economy in the use of any source of water before it should become necessary to limit absolutely, by the powers in the Bill, the access to that water of the spray irrigation interests. That, I think, completes the undertakings I gave at a previous stage.
I do not need to go into long descriptions now, but I think that the House will recognise that the Bill represents an essential feature of the modernisation of our economy; and this is the point in time at which we should emphasise our appreciation to the river boards, and all their members and officers, who will be superseded by the machinery set up by this Measure, and express our high hopes and best wishes to the river authorities and the Water Resources Board which will be created by the Bill. I think that both sides of the House hope that by the machinery established by the Bill we may be able to keep pace with—and, indeed, keep ahead of—the rapidly rising demands, domestic, agricultural and industrial, and the rapidly rising use that, mercifully, a more prosperous and more leisured population will be making of our water resources for pleasure and for fishing.
Finally, we send a message to all those concerned with water—an assurance that


we have genuinely and persistently tried to reconcile all their varying, and sometimes conflicting, interests, be they industry, statutory water undertakers, farmers, from the agricultural or land drainage point of view, or be they navigation, fisheries or the interests of the public for pleasure and for clean rivers.
This is undoubtedly a major Measure. I think that we can all take pride in having had a part in it, and I hope that the House will give it its Third Reading.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am sure that it will be understood that the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is no discourtesy to the Minister or to the House. As is, I think, known, my hon. Friend has an important engagement in his constituency tomorrow, and on Thursday evening there are problems of time, space and movement that affect him but do not affect me.
I am full of admiration, if I may say so, for the work of the Minister, of hon. Members opposite and of my hon. Friends on the Committee that dealt with this Bill. I followed—indeed, I took part in—the Second Reading debate with great interest. I thought then that this would be an important Measure and one that, once it had broken the ice—if that is the correct word for a water Bill—would be an extremely absorbing and interesting Measure. So, I think, it has proved to hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee.
There seems to have developed in the Committee a remarkable—indeed, an almost alarming—degree of amity between the two sides. Whether that was due to the subject or to my own absence from the Committee it is not for me to say, but it must be admitted that it has been to the public advantage. I am happy, therefore—if it is not considered an impertinence on the part of one who has not shared in the labours to do so—to join in the congratulations that have been showered on this Measure and on all who have worked to make it a good piece of legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SWING BRIDGE, LOWESTOFT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]

11.34 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I am very grateful to have the chance to raise the subject of a new swing bridge for Lowestoft. I make no apology for doing so, because this subject has been close to the interest of my constituents for very many years. It has an interest wider than a constituency one in that many people who spend their holidays on the East Coast have been delayed by the state in which the swing bridge now is.
The swing bridge carries the traffic on the main A. 12 London to Great Yarmouth trunk road, across Lowestoft harbour, and it is also a vital link to local traffic, including large numbers of industrial workers who live on one side of the bridge and work on the other.
Local and through traffic has greatly increased in recent years and shows every sign of continuing to do so. One of my constituent wrote to the local paper the other day pointing out that in the last 17 years he had spent all the working hours of one year waiting for the bridge to close so that he could get across. Two summers ago I had to help to prevent a strike which was to take place because of the tremendous frustration resulting from the delays on the bridge. So great are the delays in the summer that car drivers at the end of the queue waiting to cross the bridge find that it has opened again before they have reached it The result is that it can take an hour or one-and-a-half hours to get across the bridge. This is a very bad state of affairs and we welcomed very much the announcement by the Ministry of Transport some years ago that it was considering urgently the question of a new bridge.
The existing bridge is of such a nature that two buses cannot pass on it, and even at the best of times there are considerable delays. Anyhow, with the promise that we would have a new bridge a further complication arose. This was that since the war a great deal of industrial activity has commenced in the inner harbour and is to the west of the bridge. This includes the building


of very modern and large shipyards belonging to Brooke Marine, Ltd. This firm stated quite plainly when the replacement of the bridge was under discussion that if the waterway could be widened at the same time it could build a much wider variety of ships and this would help considerably the prosperity of the shipbuilding industry in the area. We have also now further industries which have developed round the harbour, including Boulton and Paul, who have big timber interests, and East Coast Silos, who are big importers and exporters of grain.
If the bridge is rebuilt to the same width of waterway as at present we shall be condemning the inner harbour and port of Lowestoft to the same sort of traffic as it has had for the last fifty years for a further fifty years. This we wish desperately to avoid. Approaches were therefore made to the Ministry to see whether this could be overcome. I have always found my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and his hon. Friend, and particularly the present Civil Lord of the Admiraty, very courteous and helpful in dealing with the problem. After we had attended as a delegation two or three years ago, the Ministry of Transport agreed to provide an extra length of bridge which would cost an additional £50,000 if the widening of the waterway were carried out by local interests. This £40,000 was additional to the cost of the new bridge, which was estimated two or three years ago to be £200,000. This is quite a big undertaking. The local authority, in conjunction with local firms, has been trying to find the sum of about £60,000 needed for the widening of the waterway.
The local authority, realising the importance of this project, agreed at once to make an allocation of 50 per cent. of the total cost, whatever that might be, up to £30,000 as a contribution by them. Brooke Marine, Ltd., which is the shipyard chiefly involved, has agreed to make a contribution of a maximum of £17,000. Boulton and Paul, who originally made an offer of £1,000 have stepped it up to £1,350, and the Docks and Harbours Board, previously the B.T.C., has made an offer of £500. The Docks and Harbours Board owns the Port of Lowestoft and over the years

would gain very considerably from the new swing bridge and new waterway. We must consider its offer of £500 to be almost worse than giving nothing at all, and I hope that it will realise that it ought to make a substantial contribution.
The sums which I have mentioned add up to £48,850. That means that there is a maximum of about £11,150 to provide to raise the£60,000 required. In addition, the companies which have agreed to help, Brooke Marine and Boulton and Paul, have also suggested that they would underwrite the annual charge which would fall on the Harbours Board if they made a contribution of £10,000, which would be about the necessary amount. They would for this £10,000 capital expenditure be receiving an offer to improve their property by about £50,000, and in the long run they would be the main beneficiaries. I hope that they will look at this again and see whether they can help. It seems ridiculous to me that a project of this nature, involving perhaps the prosperity of this East Coast port for the next 50 years, should now be prevented for the sake of £10,000, and I hope that we can get some sense into it.
The time has come when we must make a decision. We cannot go on delaying the new bridge which is so urgently needed for road traffic requirements, and therefore the stage must be reached when a decision has to be made. The purpose of the debate is to draw attention in the House to this problem and to give my hon. and gallant Friend a chance to state the intentions of the Government and his Ministry as to when the bridge will be built and what he suggests that we can do quickly to overcome the deadlock which we have reached.
I cannot help feeling that we ought to be able to find some way out but if we cannot find an immediate way out of the problem surely we ought to build the bridge and acquire the land so that at a future date the waterway can be widened if the money can be found. At least by doing that we should not get into a stage of once and for all stopping further development in the harbour.
The questions which I want to ask my hon. and gallant Friend are, first of all, when he thinks that the new bridge can be started and, secondly, whether he


will consider giving permission for the bridge to go ahead, then hoping that the local authority and local industries will once more come together and find this extra sum of money. If he says that we can go ahead with the bridge, we shall make another big effort to see that the extra sum of money is raised, but there are a great many statutory duties which have to be undertaken before work on the bridge can start, and with the present state of traffic it is essential that we get on with this now, otherwise I am afraid that the patience of my constituents will become exhausted.
I want to ask two further questions. If the local authority felt that this was absolutely essential for the future of the town and port, would it be possible for the local authority to give more than 50 per cent.?
The other question is whether my hon. Friend would ask Lord Rochdale, of the National Ports Council, to look at the problem to see whether the Council could provide the comparatively small amount of finance that is needed.
I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for coming to the House to reply to the debate. I hope he will be able to give a satisfactory answer. The situation is really very trying to local people. It is having an effect on the industrial prosperity of the area, and it is about time that something was done about it. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give me some encouragement.

11.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on having been so fortunate as to be able to raise this matter on the Adjournment tonight. I am not sure that he was quite so fortunate in the day on which the debate has fallen, but, after all, it might have been a great deal worse because the House certainly got through all the water in double quick time.
To be serious, my hon. Friend has put forward most persuasively the case for widening the channel which joins the inner and the outer harbours of Lowestoft. He also asked whether the bridge would be renewed. The two things, of course, are inter-related. It is common

ground that the swing bridge needs renewal. I cannot give the precise date. The project will have to be included in an extension to the present programme, but I can say that the preliminary procedures will be begun when we know the decision with regard to widening the channel, and I hope this will be not later than the spring of next year.
The question that arises when we consider widening the channel is the old one of where the money is to come from. My hon. Friend has explained that no less than £48,800 has been promised towards the expected cost of about £60,000 and that a sum of £11,200 is needed to enable the scheme to go forward. My hon. Friend also said that the local interests concerned have promised to contribute as much as they can and that the remaining capital, therefore, must be found elsewhere. But, in fact, the only other sources which have been suggested are the British Transport Docks Board and/or the Government, approached through Lord Rochdale.
The Docks Division of the British Transport Commission expressed an interest in this proposed development from a very early stage, and, as my hon. Friend said, it agreed to contribute a token sum of £500 towards the cost. Since then the British Transport Docks Board has taken on this commitment. Of course, whether the Docks Board is willing to make any further contribution is entirely a matter for the Board to decide. This is the kind of decision which has to be taken frequently by the nationalised industries and it would be quite wrong for the Government to try to interfere in such decisions.
I must be frank with my hon. Friend and say that even if we were prepared to press our advice on the Docks Board, we should hesitate to counsel any further contribution We must stand by the principle that the nationalised industries should operate commercially, and the Docks Board is quite clear that the widening of the channel would not be of any commercial benefit to it.
My understanding is that the width of the channel has not in the past been an obstacle to commercial shipping that used the inner harbour. The traffic consists mainly of trawlers entering for refuelling or to take on ice. The largest vessel


known to have passed through the channel had a beam of 45 feet There is no reason why a vessel of 58 feet beam could not clear the channel provided that her draught was suitable. I remind my hon. Friend that we must bear in mind that draught is a relevant consideration, and that it is estimated that it would cost up to £1,000 a foot to dredge the channel.
The other ships which use the inner harbour are those which have been built or repaired there. These, however, bring in very little revenue to the harbour authority. I therefore repeat that it is purely a management decision of the British Transport Docks Board and that, even if it were our policy to interfere in these matters, we should find difficulty in advising the Board to spend more than the £500 which it has already promised.
My hon. Friend seemed to suggest in his reference to Lord Rochdale's Ports Council that this is a case in which the Government might make a grant. I cannot accept this. The Government have never before made a grant for harbour works in time of peace except in the case of a disaster. This does not mean that no grant can ever be made in future, but it does mean that we must think very carefully before we set the precedent. At present, I cannot foresee grants of this kind being made unless the case were very exceptional and there were a compelling national need.
Much the same consideration applies to this sort of case as to the case for maintaining docks which have ceased to pay their way. I dealt at some length with this when I was winding up the debate on the ports last week, and, if I may, I will repeat what I said then:
If there were a genuine national interest—such as defence—a port might be kept open at the national expense. If the reason were a local one, such as the effect on a town or city of the closing of its port, the local authority should decide whether it is willing to bear the burden. In the case of some municipally-owned ports, this already happens. If, as is also sometimes the case at present, the existence of a port is essential for a particular industry or firm, that interest must decide whether it is willing to keep the port going."—[Official Report, 10th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1370–1.]
I cannot see that there is any sufficient national interest in carrying out the widening of this channel to justify a Government grant. I can conceive that

such a case might arise if there were an overriding need to increase shipbuilding capacity in this country, but, as we have often said, the reverse is, unfortunately, the case. There is a surplus of ship-building capacity in the country and we must expect contraction in the future rather than expansion.
Neither has it seemed to us that there is a case for arguing that the future of Lowestoft as a port is at stake. It may be—I dare say that this is so—that the ship-building industry would benefit from the widening of the channel; but this is certainly not a reason why the Government should make a grant. Of course, I recognise that the scheme is favoured by local interests. The council's willingness to pay half the cost is sufficient evidence of this. If the council judged that the future of Lowestoft as a port depended on it, it would, no doubt, be prepared to present a case for increasing the contribution.
To come to the question which my hon. Friend asked me. There is no fixed rule limiting such a contribution to 50 per cent. In this case, however, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government felt that it would be unfair to the ratepayers to go beyond this for a project which seemed most to benefit local industrial interests. If the local council feels that there is a case, in order to maintain the port as a port, for this work to be undertaken, it must come back to my right hon. Friend and make that case.
Meanwhile, it certainly seems to us that the main beneficiary of the scheme would be the ship-building interest. I think, therefore, that it is for that interest to decide whether to give it greater financial support. If shipbuilding does not think it worth while in its own interest, it is difficult to see why the Government should make a contribution, particularly in present conditions.
I know that it could be argued that the Government should do it to create more employment in the town; yet this is rather academic since there is no certainty that the firm would secure orders for larger ships. If they thought that, they would surely be willing to increase their contribution.
Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government's attitude is not


purely negative. As a result of his intervention, we have already agreed that when the bridge over the channel is rebuilt, we will bear the additional cost, estimated at about £40,000, of increasing the span of the bridge if the channel were widened. This, of course, was subject to the proviso that the harbour works would be carried out without charge to Government funds. We have already, therefore, gone some way towards making the scheme possible and I do not think it reasonable that the Government should be asked to go further and contribute towards the cost of the harbour works as well.
In his concluding remarks, my hon. Friend asked whether the Government would be prepared to build a longer bridge in any case. We recognise that unless this is done, any prospect of widening the channel would be put off for many years. I can only say that we will consider this, but only if we can be satisfied that there is a clear prospect of the channel being widened in the foreseeable future. That is as far as I

can go and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not unreasonable.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, but I should like to ask him a question on his last point about the extra length of the bridge. What does he mean by "foreseeable future"? Does he mean a period of, perhaps, five or ten years or something of that nature? If the local authority says that it will undertake the work within five or ten years, would my hon. and gallant Friend then see his way clear to advising the Ministry to accept the extra length of bridge as its responsibility?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would rather not be too specific. What I had in mind was that we should want a definite plan and not a vague aspiration. We should need a definite plan and some sort of date and assurance that the work would be undertaken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock